10. Ray Chen appeal
It 71tlf~7
r." ., ,.. '
\ . I' \.f
: · ,:) [I,,,, c::: i: " 'j
i "\
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL U L \!:;L ,~_:/ ;- -' I
REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF APPL CA-rtJON R-,oOn-n, I \1'
7453 STANFORD PLACE, CUPERTINO CUPERTINO CITY CLERi< .
#/0
APPELLANTS: Richard Wittington, Lixin (Caine) Yu and Larry Line
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The photographic evidence shows that the Cupertino Planning Commission did not
adequately consider at least three sections of Cupertino Municipal Code requirements when
approving the residential design submitted by the applicant, Ray Chen, on behalf of his non-
resident clients. When those three Municipal Code sections are considered the only legal
course would be to deny the design approval. Two of the five planning commission
commissioners agreed with this assessment and voted not to approve the design. Nineteen
residents representing all the occupants in homes on Stanford Place and the adjacent street
signed a petition to the planning commission opposing the construction of a house of such
mass and bulk as to be incompatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern.
Municipal Code:
Title 19, Chapter 28.060 Section C.1.a of the Cupertino Municipal Code provides that the
mass and bulk of a residential design shall be reasonably compatible with the predominant
neighborhood pattern. In addition, Section C.1. e provides that unarticulated, exposed
second story walls should be avoided since it can increase the apparent mass of the second
story. Chapter 28.100 Section D.3 for two story designs also require that the "proposed
project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood." Section D.4
mandates that "adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably
mitigated."
Photographic Evidence:
Photographs were taken of every single house on Stanford Place and are on the following
pages. In addition, photographs were taken of every home in the entire neighborhood that
has had modifications to the entry feature or porch of the house or had an additional floor
added. These include homes on Kentwood Avenue, Steeplechase Lane, Rollingdell Drive,
Stanford Place and Tiptoe Lane. Originally, this development was entirely Hunter Homes
built in the 1960'S. The vast majority of homes have preserved their original entry features.
There is not a single two story house on Stanford Place.
Members of the Cupertino City Council are asked to actually look at the photographs of
homes on Stanford Place and the entire neighborhood and judge for themselves. Even a
casual observer would clearly notice that there is no home in the entire neighborhood that is
similar in scale and design with the existing homes in the neighborhood.
PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE:
STANFORD PLACE
;ojj
;i.~. .
'!,j,
"'S,
,~
I' .. ..
~.
7409 Stanford Place
:Jr."
~3\'
....'..'
~'1!!..~
" -
7413 Stanford Place
,
I'"
7429 Stanford Place
7433 Stanford Place
7465 Stanford Place
7471 Stanford Place
7408 Stanford Place
7412 Stanford Place
,-
'ifJ':;'
.:~..
'.i'
"
. ~~ .~. '.~~~1~
7438 Stanford Place
7442 Stanford Place
Ii" ~~ ~-;~ .~:~
'b "I
~I!:
~..:;
r~\ >>I~rli'
),4..1'
{' ~;
?
l~
. ,\~',
.V
':IY"~1,~"l;'r. " " ;.,;p It'
~ tj;~ I.'~~ ~ ii, ~
':1.
.,
I
7490 Stanford Place
7478 Stanford Place
~:'~ !.\\.:~ ,~~~~-- ~~"~~~~~
..~ij~' ''''fsi%"'J.? ';.'l?l:i~;;;,.)t,J;~
J,~',,?:%-~~~~v.a~~"t:."..
__,;'_~',:C-.''''.'
,+ ~~.,
7498 Stanford Place
SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD PHOTOS ALL IMPROVED HOUSES
1107 Kentwood Avenue
1123 Kentwood Avenue
:t.'
;rA. r-l
-' ~\:
,::1 ""-!ii','
..
_q....._...;~4
....-::~'?"'-.,1t', .~,}',,.._- "
~. ~~~~~~~,~~,.. . r~;', !.~.;~;t~~. .1
a.~..i~_,., " " . .' .,,<\l.. ,,"' ;~:~._~~ '_"_ "" .~'~~1"~ .........,,"~
~.....iI " ~. .... ", ~;,j;j;,.,. 0<'" ;!~.u:.-.........
7465 Rollin dell Drive
-- ..~~
~
~ ~;.;..;. ::or. ..i'lJ..~ ........'ti;Jl!$......
, .
Il'
/'
..,,,
Current Structure 7453 Stanford Place
Proposed Structure 7453 Stanford Place
COMMENTS:
In only one case, 7428 Stanford Place does the porch or entry feature extend closer to the
street than the garage, and then only by approximately 18 inches. This house, ironically built
by the same builder, Ray Chen is reasonably proportionate to other homes in the
neighborhood. The entry feature on the proposed structure at 7453 Stanford Place
encroaches on the forward border of the house by nearly 8 feet. Despite Mr. Chen referring
to it as a porch, it is too large to be able to use this description as defined by the Municipal
Code.
As you will note, not a single home is close to the mass and bulk of the proposed structure.
The builder and owners are trying to fit a disproportionately large building on a smaller than
usual lot. The proposed 2693 square foot house is more than double the size of the
predominant 1200-1300 square feet houses in the neighborhood. It is totally incompatible
with the neighborhood.
As the appellants understand it, the owners of the house bought the property to build
another house and sell it at a profit. They do not intend to occupy the building themselves.
While the appellants believe the owners have every right to make a reasonable return on
their investment, we do not believe it should be at the expense of the rest of the
neighborhood. Because there is virtually no offset on the wall facing 7449 Stanford Place,
we believe this disproportionately large house will negatively impact the property value of
7449 Stanford Place. In addition, this large wall will be clearly visible across the street by the
residents at 7448 and 7452 Stanford Place respectively and reduce their property values.
We do not want unrestricted growth in our neighborhoods. Just drive a few blocks away to
West San Jose if you want to see what happens without reasonable limits.
There is no objection to progress and a reasonably sized house in the neighborhood.
However, since the builder has declined to change the mass and bulk of the proposed
structure sufficient to make it reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood
pattern, the appellants request that the Cupertino City Council deny the building permit for
the proposed structure.
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
CUp.ERTINO
Community Development
Department
Summary
Agenda Item No. JP
Agenda Date: July ~7, 2007 .
Application: R-2006-62 .
Applicant: Ray Chen
Property ~of;ation: 7453 Stanford Place
.Application Summary,:
Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Residential Design
RevIew for a new, two-story 2,693 square foot residence. The appellants are Richard
Whittington, Lixin (Caine) YUt and Larry Line. .
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The City Council has the following options:
1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision; or
.2. Uphold the appeal; or '
3. Uphold the appeal and direct additional modifications to the plans.
Environmental Assessment:
Categorically Exempt
BACKGROUND
The applicant (~ay Chen) is proposing to construct a 2,693 square foot, two-story
residence on a 5,994 square foot lot located along the north side of Stanford Place. The
immediate neighborhood is predominately ranch style single story homes. The project site
is surrounded by silnilar Rl-6 zoning districts with the exception of the properties
immediate to the north along TIptoe Lane that are zoned Rl-6i - single story only~ There
are some two story homes around the adjacent streets and in the broader neighborhood.
The home is consistent with the Rl Ordinance in terms of size, height and setbacks.
Generally, two-story homes are approved by the Community Development Director.
However, this project was forwarded to the Planning Commission for a final consideration
due to the number of concerns raised by the neighborhood regarding the design
.compatibility. On April 24/ 2007/ the Plam1.ing Commission approved the proposed
project with a 3-2 vote (Commissioners Chien, Kan~da and Miller voting yes). The
Planning Commission's decision is being challenged by three neighbors (Richard
Whittington, Cain Yu and Larry Line).
-10- 1
R-2006-62
Page 2
7453 Stanford Place ,
July 17, 2007
APELLANTS' JUSTIFICATION
The appellants' basis for the appeal is summarized as follows (staff's response in bold):
1. The proposed home is not compatible with the surrqunding neighborhood and is
inconsistent with the intent of the Rl Ordinance.
One of the principle purposes of the Rl Ordinance is to ensure a reasonable level
of compatibility in scale' of structures within a residential neighborhood. This is
basically achieved by having developments adhere to a set of specific
development parameters (i.e., lot coverage, floor area ratio, building height,
second floor to first floor ratio, setbacks, building envelope). Typically the City
has allowed homes to be maximize9 within the app~oved framework of the_Rl
Ordinance provided. that the design and the style of the home are generally
consistent with the neighborhood. New homes are expected too reduce their
visual mass and scale to the maximum extent possible without undermining the
property owner's functional needs.
The City has not in the past required homes in a Rl zoning district to match the
average size or be re.duced to a single story home in order to match the general
pattern of the neighborhood. Tne applicant has made numerous changes to the
structure at the request of staff and the Planning Commission to further soften
the visual mass and scale of the structure. The proposed project is within the
prescriptions of. the Rl Ordinance in all aspects and the-Planning Commission
found the home to be reasonably consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
2. The proposed hOlne has unarticulated exposed second story.walls that are
inconsistent with the Rl Ordinance;
The Rl Ordinance does not require all walls to be articulated. It is often difficult.
on a smaller lot to design a home where all walls are articulated due to structural
and fu~ctional considerations. The project does a reasonable job overall in terms
of providing suffi~ient building wall articulation and minimizing visual mass.
3~ The Planning Commissioned approved the project without adequate consideration
of issues such as neighborhood compatibility and the general pattern of tIle
neigllbor hood.
The Planning Commission held two separate public hearings on this project. ~he
Commission provided extra time for the applicant to communicate with the
neighbors and for the neighborhood to receive sufficient time to review the
proposal. .The Commission considered all of the facts presented on the project
and made a knowledgeable decision.
'4~ Two of the five Planning Commissioners rejected the project because the plans were
grossly inconsistent with the neighborhood patterns in terms of mass and bulk.
Meeting records indicate that the two Commissioners were overall supportive of
the project but voted against the project because both Commissioners were
concerned with the scale of the proposed entry feature. Both Commissioners
10 - 2
R-2006-62
Page 3
7453 Stanford Place
July 17, 2007.
clarified at the public hear~ng that they would support the project should the
entry feature be reduced in scale. .
5. The porch and/ or entry feature is out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood.
The applicant has already pushed the entry feature further back from the front of
the street, reduced its height and changed the design slightly to address some -of
the neighbors' concerns. The entry feature could potentially be lowered six
inches by simplifying the adj acent bay window roof. This option was discussed
by the Planning Commission but did not receive majority support.
-6~ Inaccurate information was presented to the Planning Conunission..
Staff believes that the appellants are referring to the height of the front entry
canopy and the proposed front yard setback. The project will be constructed as
shown on the plans, so it will be built correctly. Prior to pouring the foundation,
the applicant is required to submit a building pad certification prepared by a
professional civil engineer verifying that the location of the building foundations
and general building setbacks are accurate. Both the proposed entry feature
height and the front yard setback are within the maximum and minimum
allowed by the R1 Ordinance. The applicant has the flexibility to further lower
the entry feature and/or provide more front yard setback as long as they are
within the prescribed limits of the Rl Ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION
As mentioned previously, the Commission considered the project on two separate
occasions (April 10, 2007 and April 24, 2007 public hearings)~ The Commission approved,
the project and required that the applicant/ owner work with the rear neighbors to plaflt
larger privacy protection trees. In addition, the Conunission added a condition requiring
the recordatio~ of a covenant, which required future City approval of any alternations to
the second story windows along the rear and side elevations. .
. Prepared by: Gary Chao, Senior Planner
Enclosure:
Planning Commission Resol~tion No. 6456
Exhibit A: Appellant's Justifications
Exhibit B: Planning Commission Staff Report (w / attachments) dated April 10, 2007 and April 24,
2007. .
Exhibit C: Planning Commission Minutes, April 10 and April 24, 2007 _
Plan set (p ease refer to the plan set attached t~ the April 24, 2007 Commission-report)
Steve Piasecki
Director, Community Development
F: \PDREPORT\ CC\ 2006\ R-2006-62cLd~c
~d by:
David.W~ Knapp
City Manager
10 - 3
R -2006-62
. CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avellue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6456
OF THE PLANNING COMJvITSSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A -NEW, TWO-STORY 2,693 SQUARE FOOT
RESIDENCE~
SECTION I: .PROTECT .DESCRIPTION
Application No~:
Applical1t: -
Location:
R-2006-62
Ray Chen.
7453 Sta11.ford Place
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the necessary public 110tices have been givell III accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and t11e Plal1l1ing Conunissioli has held one. or more
public l1earings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicaIlt has met the burden of proof required to support said applicatiol1;
and has satisfied the following requiremeIlts:
1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, and applicable specific
plans, zoning ordinance and tile purposes -of this title;
2. TIle granting of the special permit will not result in a conditioIl that is detrimental or
injurious to property or improvemel1ts in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare;
3. The proposed home is l1armonious ll1 scale al1.d design witl'l the ge11eral11eighborl'lood;
4.. Adverse visual impacts OIl adjoll1.ing properties have been reasonably mitigated..
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful cOl1.sideration of maps, facts,. exhibits/. testimony and other eyidel1ce
. submitted lll. this matter, the design review applic~tion is l1ereby approved subject to the
conditions whicl1 are eIlumerated ip this Resolution beghmi11.g 011 page 2 thereof; and
That tIle SUbCOI1Clusiol1.S upon wluc;h t11€ findings aI'ld conditions specified in this resolution
are based and contained ill. tI1.e public hearu1g record concerning Application. R-2006-62 set
forth lll. the Minutes of the Plalming CommissioIl meetil1g of, April 24, 2007, and are
lllcorporated by refererlce as though fully set forth herein..
10 - 4
Resolution No. 6452
. Page 2
R-2006-62
April 24, 2007
SECTION Ill. CONDmONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
. 1. APPROVED PROTECT
The proposed two-story house is approved, based on the conceptual plans elltitled
"Residential New Home for Mr. and Mrs. Lin, 7453 Stanford Place, Cupertll1o, CA 95014"
last updated 011 December 1~, 2006, as amel1ded by this resolution.
2. PRIVACY. PROTECTION
Tile project is required to SUblnit a final privacy protection planting plaIl. COl1sistent with
the Rl privacy protection ordinance. The row of required evergreen screelling trees or
shrubs. along the rear property line (minimum 12. feet tall at the time of plaltti11.g) shall be
planted approximately. 12 feet away from the, property line ill order to stay clear of tIle
over-head PG&E wire clearance easement. The required privacy screening trees or sllrubs
shall be recorded on tIle property as a covenant to be preserved and maintall1.ed. Said.
covenant shall be recorded prior to iSSUa11Ce of final building occupancy.
3. REVISIONS SECOND STORY WINDOWS ON THE REAR ELEVATION
A covenant shall be. recor~ed on the property that requires a Director's Millor
Modificatiol1.approval (with neighborhood notification) on allY proposed cl'langes to tIle
2nd story windows along the rear and side elevations.
4. AFPRaV AL EXPIRATION
Unless a building permit is filed .and accepted by the City (fees paid and cOl'ltrol number
issued) within one year of the Two. Story Permit approval (by April 24, 2008), said
approval shoall become ~ull and void unless a IOllger time period was specifically
prescribed by the conditiol1S of approval. In the event that the building permit expires for
allY reason" the Two-Story Permit shall become null aIld void. The Director of
CommU1uty Development may grant all oIle-year extensionr without a ,public notice, if an,
applicatiol1 for a Minor Modificatioll to the Two-Story Permit is filed before. the expiratioll.
date and Substa11tive justificatioIl fo~ the extellsion is provided.
5. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONSjf RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS.
The COl1ditions of Project Approval set forth 11.erein may lllclude certain fees, dedic_ation
requiremeIlts, reservation requiremel1ts, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government
Code Section 66020(d) (1), these COTlditions constitute written notice of a statement of the
'amount of such fees, aIld a descriptiol1. of the deq.ications, reservations, and other'
exactions. You are l1ereby further Ilotified ~at the 90-day approval period III whicl1 you.
may protest these fees, dedications, reservatiol1S, and otller ~xactions, pursuant to
Governmellt Code Sectioll66.020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-
day period complying witll all of the requirements of Section 66020,.you will be legally
barred from later challertging such exactions..
10 - 5
. Resolutiorl No.. 6452
Page 3
R-2006-62
April 24, 2007
. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of April 2007, at.a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
A YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
COMMISSIONERS: Vice C.hair 'C11ien, Miller} Kal1eda
COMJ\1ISSIONERS: C~airpersoIl Giefer, WOllg
CQM:MISSIONERS: nOlle
COMMISSIONERS: none
APPROVED:
/ s / Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
/ s /Lisa Giefer
Lisa Giefer, Chairperson
Plannu"lg Commissiol1
10 - 6
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cnpertino,Cll 95014
(408) 777-3223
Exhibit A
\.ru - M~Y 1 0 2007 IllJ.
. clTY<.O"F
C.UPE-IQ"INO
CUP~RTINO.':CITY CLERK
APPEAL
1. Application No. R-2006-62
2. Applicant(s) Name: Ray Chen
3. Appellant(s) Name: Richard Whittington, LOOn (Caine) Yu and Lany Line
Address
7438.. 7449 and 7452 Stanford Place.. Cupertino
(408) 446-2308.. (408) 252-1353 and (408) 446-3564
Phone Number
Email
I\vhitt6313@comcast.net. caine vurmyahoo.com and .
line@jps.net
4. Please check one:
o Appeal a decision of Director of Community Development
~, Appeal a decision of Planning Commission
5. Date of determination of.Director or mailing of notice .of City decision:
Apri126.. 2007
6. Basis of appeal: Title 19, Chapter 28.060 Section C.l.a of the Cupertino Municipal
Code provides that the mass and bulk of a residential design shall be reasonably
compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. In addition, Section C.1. e
provides that unarticulated, exposed second story walls should be avoided since it can
increase the apparent mass of the second story. Chapter 28.100 Section D3 for two story
designs also require that the "proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the
general neighborhood." Section D.4 mandates that "adverse visual impacts on adjoining
properties have been reasonably mitigated."
The Cupertino Planning Commission met on April 24, 2007 and approved the
aforementioned project without adequate consideration for its fit with the general
neighborhood pattern of homes. Two of the five commissioners rejected the applicants .
design plans because the plans were grossly inconsistent with the neighborhood patterns in
terms of mass and bulk of the design~. The three other commissioners stated that the
1 0 -17
owner has the right to develop the property as he'or she sees fit and declined to request
mitigation in terms of the mass and bulk of the desigrL
The project was opposed by so many in the neighborhood that the Cupertino planning
dep~ent declined to approve the project and instead referred it directly to the planning
commission. Fifteen homes on Stanford Place and five homes on Tiptoe Lane on the
.reverse side of project submitted a petition to the planning commission objecting to the
size an~ scope of the project.
The size and scope of the proposed entry feature are not at all consistel~t with the general
neighborhood. There is not a single home in the entire development that even approaches
the size of the .planned entry feature. It has 18 inch square columns when most of the
neighborhood has 4 inch. The proposed entry feature is 14 feet 11 inches from the ground
at its maximum height. Even more disturbing is the extension of the entry feature 7 feet
six inches from the front of the house and the garage. No home in the entire development
has an entry feature that is even close to the size, scope or extension of the proposed
home. Nearly every home in the neighborhood has a porch that does not extend past the
garage. Most are not as close to the street as the garage. Only two homes in the entire
neighborhood have a porch or entry feature that extends past the garage and then only by
one or two feet.. These are both remodeled single story homes and are generally
consistent, in design with the other homes in the neighborhood. There was no objection to
these homes~
The applicant has refused to significantly reduce the size, scope or height of the entry
feature. During the planning commission meetings, the applicant also made .
representations to the planning commission that were inaccurate and misleading. For
example, he stated that the average distance from.the house to the street m.. the
neighborhood was 23.5 feet A Tills is incorrectA
We believe that the size, scope and mass of the proposed project will negatively affect the
property values' of the homes in the immediate proximity. The owners of the property. do
not intend to occupy the home but we suppose simply want to maximize their profits to
the detriment of the neighboring properties.
We urge the City Council to reject the application as approved by the Plamrlng
Commission. If the applicant wishes to submit another plan where the size, scope, mass
and magnitude of the house is consistent with the general neighborhood, we Will not
object. We do not object to progress.
Please complete form, include appeal fee of$l
City Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue~ Cupertino, (40
.00 and return to the attention of the
77-3223.
~~~
10 -~
Exhibit B
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: R-2006-62
Applicant: Ray Chen
Property Location: 7453 Stanford Place
Agenda Date: April 24, 2007
APPLICATION SUMMARY:.
Community Development Director's referral of a Residential Design Review for a new,
two-story 2,693 square foot residence..
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the project with the staff recommended changes.
BACKGROUND
On April 10, 2007, the Planning Cormnission took public testimony a'nd reviewed the.
proposed new two-story home~ The Plarming Coriunission continued the project to its
April 24, 2007 meeting and directed the following:
. Allow sufficient time for the neighbors to review the revised plans.
. Reduce the front entry feature (lowering its height and pulling it back from the
street) .
One Commissioner also asked that the applicallt .consider providing more second story
recess from the first story along the right side elevation..
DISCUSSION
NeighborJ1ood revie1.v of the plans:
A few neighbors expressed concerns that they were not given sufficient time to review
the plans presented to the Planning Commission on Apri110, 2007~ Staff emailed the
plans to the group of neighbors inunedia~ely after the 'Cormnission meeting. On April
17,2007,. the plans were mailed to all of the neighbors within 300 feet of the project.
Staff received additional revised plans from the applicant on April 18, 2007. Most of the
immediate adjacent neighbors have received the revised plans via email on April 18,
2007. The hard copy will be mailed out to the neighbors on April 19, 2007, the same day
that tIle Planning Commission's package will be mailed out..
Additional neighborhood comments:
Since the last Planning Commission meeting, staff has received the following input
from the neighborhood (staff response in bold):
10 - 9
R-2006-62
Page 2
April24F 2007
. The concern that the story poles at the project site are inaccurate..
Staff performed a site inspection- and th~ story pole location matches the
setbacks as indicated on the project plans.
. The concern that setback of the front entry feature is not clear or inaccurate..
Based on the most recent revise.d plans, the proposed entry feature will be
setback 20 feet 9 inches from the front property line (please see attached
plans).
. The upstairs bathroom window along the right elevation should be fixed (non-
. operable), obscured and. raised for privacy reasons.
The upstairs bathroom .window has been revised to be obscured window.
However the applicant would like to keep the window operable for ventilation
reasons.
. There needs to be a p~ivacy protection tree along the right side of the property
screening views from the bathroom window. Such tree should be large enough
to provide sufficient privacy mitigation.
. As a condition of this project, the applicant will be planting one City approved
privacy protection tree to mitigate views from this window.
. The second floor along the right elevation should be recessed from the ground
. floor to provide additional visual relief.
. -
The applicant has explored this opti!ln but decided to not recess the second
floor due to structural reasons.
. The applicant should work with the rear neighbors to select appropriate privacy
protection trees.
The applicant is agreeable to work with the neighbors in selecting a privacy
protection tree that will work for everyone.
. The privacy protection trees along t~e rear property line should be higher than
eight feet at the time of planting to provide more immediate privacy relieve..
The Rl Ordinance requires that privacy .protection trees be at least 24 inch box
and 8 feet tall at the time of planting. The applicant has the option of planting
larger trees. The Planning Commission has the option of requiring larger or
taller trees.
. The privacy protection trees should be recorded on the property as a covenant.
This is a standard condition of approval.
. There should be a condition or covenant that requires discretionary review of
any future changes to the 2nd story rear elevation (especially changes on the bay
~ndow and bathroom window).
10 - 10
R-2006-62
Page 3
April 24, 2007
A condition has bee added that any future change made to the 2nd floor
windows along the rear elevation shall require a director's minor modification
with neighborhood notification. A covenant shall be required on the property
disclosing this condition to any future owners.
. The rear facing 2nd story square bay window should not have any windows on
the sides.
No windows are being proposed on the sides of the square bay window.
Entry Feature:
The applicant has reduced the entry feature by approximately 6 inches and the entry "
columns have been pushed back by approximately 1 foot (see the following diagram).
,:~
~. ~~~l"~~~~
IV&. z:~~~." ' ~ r,:;.-
~ ~--.~I~~~~ ~~~~! ~~: ITl:':_ ~:~.:
~v ~aQ 1&1' ,1:~~~~~~I:ll~l~" ~~~' ~~ ~;~~~ ,.
< ,,'. ~ J II:.. 11t1: t.... . .. ~ :'~'D ~~'II'~~i~~~
'.~i . ;5-'-~. I::~:r rw
~ "L~ 1(~~; ~II '3 ,,-": ----I
r=;:,: I
J$~ .~1':t~;C
,21 ~ M.\'. .:s.~d =-lfl ~ ty.hliiciWl.. u-xr -- Sml~"
r~~'::~~A~~' ~u_nP."":~"'''''9L ,-.~~ -~m
. . I . .
, -FRONt:ElEVA110N.
v~~r~r-' - - -'-'-
Even though the entry feature has been lowered and setback further from the street, the
visual effects are negligible. To satisfy the intent of the Planning Corrunission's
direction, staff recommends that the roof of the bay window on the front elevation be
simplified in order to allow the entry feature be lowered by another 6 inches (trom 11
10 - 11
R-2006-62
Page 4
April 24, 2007 .
feet to 10.5 feet at the plate).. Please see staff revised diagram below:
LOWer Entry .By Another :6..lnches
r...... '.' .I ~h. 1
~~ ~..III: I'.s..~!".
~III:U liD ;.;~~~ :llIllll~h '. Ml ftJI.1lJ' l'lATt .
."'-11 II II IIIII..~A -.~ J II : 1- IIU I~ m....-.
- D~ ...-,. ~~. 1.1. ., Hr
..... . _ . ~ ......".- . 1l _.~ ....-. ~~ ~
. .... ' ., . ~ I II III' I II ,. . . -, ,. -
. ... -. ;;. ~ II .. 'J 1"1. . . ........... . r8Ul.DllO DM1f.lI'
/' . ~ ~_..-_.._....:
'I' . /~~~I~:~;~r~r:Jl~b~~~~J~ :~:~.j:-~--
....l4~~~ ':--~... '-.. IIII iI~ .: .:.. "It ,'1i ~ ''''.: Il 'In..." ." ..:..,~
Sim'plify :Roof Feature
!',ia-awcunD
l&&t F~ IlCINIlJ
=~
M. -, '....
.:1
.._Jii:_iH; .
"m..: -.
_I'''IHI; 1)= r11'1 : EB3BB...
~~'~~.I; r Il~ ~~
~ ."..... V' v-.-" V ~
1___- ~
. . . .-' '"'--.-~~'1 ~~.
: " ~~ '" aJI....lW1!'ifWi
.M
~~
;::;
- "w" AYDiAc:E .N
,... 11'= ..;..t.tt. . .
4" ~~ C1LV, .~2J
. . . . . AOOYE 11<<51 Gr#DE' .at
~ t.OI ~ eatC 'A~ TIP.
.~~.p~.~ ~W."~-~~
-.U"W:n?~-.:.==~.
. . . . .ALMOHO . - ,. '...
1m MIiua'itBi.
~If~af~ ~;J:~E'
- ..FRONT.ELeVATlON.
'- . 'It- .~..,.-.. . -... ... .. --.
Other miscellaneous changes:
The appiicant has increased tIle width of all window trims from 3 inches to 4.5 inches~
Submitted by: Gary Chao, Associate Planner . ~
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development e.- () ~ \
ENCLOSURES
Revised Model Resolution
Emails of Concern from the neighbors
Planning Commission Staff Report Dated April 10, 2007 (with attachments)
Revised Plan Set received April 181 2007
F: \ PDREPORT\pc \ 2007\ R-2006-62b.doc
10 - 12
R-2006-62
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF mE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY 2,693 SQUARE FOOT
RESIDENCE~
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
R-2006-62
Ray Chen
7453 Stanford Place
SECTION II: FINDINGS
. WHEREASr the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural . '. .
Ordinance of the City of Cupertil1o, and the Planning Commission has held t one or ,more-. .
public hearings on this matter,; and
WHEREA5r the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; . .. ,
and has satisfied the followin.g requirements: ., . -" " ... ".
. 1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Planr and applicable specific ......
plansr zoning ordinance and .the purposes of this title; .
2. The granting of the special permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinitYr and will not be detrimental to
the public health, safetY or welfare;
3. The proposed home is harmonious in scale and design with the gelLerall1eighborhood;
4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, 'the design review application is hereby approved subject to the
conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application R-2006-62 set
forth in- the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of, April 24, 2007, and are
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein~
10 - 13
Resolution No.
Page 2
R-2006~62
April 24, 2007
SECTION III. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED. BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED PROTECT
The proposed two-story house is approved, b~sed on the conceptual plans entitled
"Residential New Home for Mr. and Mrs. Lin, 7453 Stanford Place, Cupertino, CA 95014"
last updated on December 18, 2006r as amended by this resolution.
2. PRIVACY PROTECTION
The project is required to submit a final privacy protection planting plan consistent with
the Rl privacy protection ordinance. The row of required screening trees or shrubs along
- the rear property line shall be planted at least 12 feet away from the property line in order
to stay clear of the over-head PG&E wire clearance easement. The required privacy
screening trees or shrubs shall be recorded on tlle property as a covenant to be presetve.d
and maintained.. ,-, Said covenant shall be recorded prior - to issuance of final building.- ~ ,-.. .<, -:
occupancy.
3. ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES .. -_'..'_: ,~._' ""_ __ _. -r ,<-
The plans shall be revised: to r"eflect the reconunended changes o'utlined in the staff.report ~. ".. -' '
dated April 24, 2007 unless otherwise amended by the Planning Commission.. .Final plans ,"
shall be submitt~d to the ~lanning Department for r~yie~ and approval prior.'to.-issuance
'of any building permits.'( ,. I ~ " ':. .
-. : ~ ... = . ~ -
, '.~._ REYISIO~S ~ECO~D"STORY WINDOWS 9~ ~~..~.E~_~_ ELEVATION. -~" ,..:_.~.~.~_ ~ ~ ',-:
A covenant shall be recordeq on the property." ttLa~ . require~ a_ Director's Minor~.
Modification approval (with neighborhood notifiCation). on any.pr~po~~d changes tQ the-..
_,2nd story windows along fhe rear elevation.
5. APPROV AL EXPIRATION
Unless a building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number
issued) within one year of the Two Story Permit approval (by April 24r - 2008), said
approval shall become null and void. unless a longer time period. was specifically.
prescribed by the conditions of approval. In the event that tIle building permit expires for'
any reason, the Two-Story Permit shall become null and void. The Director of
Community Development may grant an one-year extension, witllOUt a public notice, if al1
application for a Minor Modification to tIle Two-Story Permit is filed before the expiration
date and. substantive justification for the extension is provided.
6. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth l1ereil1 may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government
Code Section 66020(d) (1), tllese Conditions c011stitute written notice of a statement of the
amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other
exactions. ,You are hereby further notified that ~he 90-day approval period in which you
may protest these fees, dedications,-reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to
Government Code SectioIl 66020( a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within, tfi~ 20-
Resolution No~
Page 3
R-2006~62
Apri124r 2007
day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of April 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABST AIN: .COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED: .
~_ r . I
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development.
. . .
. Lisa Gener, Chairperson.
.. .' _ '. ~_ ~l_?lnniti.g Commission
. -I i
. ~
10 - 15
Gary Chao
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dan Borrego [dan@borrego.net]
Wednesday, April 18, 2007 9:07 PM
Gary Chao
Robidart ,""r. Robidart
My concerns for the new house on Stanford...
Hi Gary,
I do not plan to speak about any of the myriad of issues that the other ne.ighbors. have
brought up. My main concerns are with privacy screening and to have that privacy protected
for the future..
My co~cerns and requests for the commission are as follows:
_ I would like the commission tQ request that the applicant plant trees that are larger
than the 8' minimum. Since. an 81 tree will not provide any privacy for quite a number of
years. I don't know how many but I am willing to bet it is more than five years before it
reaches the second story window. And that is only if it is fertilized, irrigated, and
pruned properly. If the trees. aren't cared for properly, then they may never reach an
appropriate height~ If that is tne case what is our recourse?
_ I would like the applicant.to work with us to choose privacy planting species..
.~_ I realize.that the applicant has agreed to plant the .trees twelve- feet from the: fente,
but I wo~ld like the trees to become part o~ the .deed (~. covenant on ,the deed.?) so that
they cannot b.e removed by the new own~r.. .
-.I ~6~ld like to ~ee something th~t ~eeps the re~r elevation ,of the.hous~ .from being
,changed by any ne~ own~~s. ~~ip;y to pr~ven~.p~ivacy i~~u~s l~ke t~e o~es,we. are currently
dea~~ng with. If it can be a covenant on ~he deed then .that would, be great! If not, then
{f theie ~an be ~ re~ciiremeri~ 'for a revi~~ of any changes, .:~ith.notific~tion ~ent, to all
.of the. affected neighbor~ that might be. acceptable. as wel1~,
If you ha'veany questions for" me, or oth~r' information,:. please contact" meat 408-218-5266.
Best regard~,
Dan Borrego.
On Apr 18,2007, at 4:49 PM, Gary Chao wrote,:
Maureen,
You are correct in that observation. The side elevation is in error and the rear s-econd
story bay window IS GO~NG TO BE A SQUARED BAY WINDOW. The ~ast set of plans mailed to you
WAS THE PLANS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION that some folks complained of not
getting prior .to the last meeting. I just received revised plans today (see attached) .
I won't be able to mail them out to you until tomorrow morning. .
From what I can tell the following things have been changed:
. The entry canopy has been lowered from 11.5 feet to 11 feet at the
top plate and pushed back by 1 foot from the front property line~
. The window trim has ,been widened from 3 inches to 4.5 inches.
. The rear squared bay window now is accurately reflected on the side
elevations (w/o side windows) .
. Garage door windows have been squared.
other than that everything else is the same.
recommendation to the Planning commission:
At this point the following will be staff's
1
10 - 16
1 Simplify the ro feature of .the front facing ba ,indow thus
allowing the entry canopy to be lowered by an additional six inches.
2 Put back the privacy protection tree along the right side property
line (this is to address part of Cain's concerns).
3 Consider- inset portions of the second story wall along the right
side elevation to provide additional articulation and. relief. .
The applicant has indicated that they do not wish to f~rther recess the 2nd story wall
along the right side elevation due to floor plan and structural considerations.
We've heard you loud and clear at the last Planning Commission meeting in terms of your
concerns~ Some were specific and some were more general in nature. You also have heard
from the Planning Commission and the directions that were given to the applicant. At this
point if there are additional comments and new concerns I please forward them to.me by
tomorrow morning (by lO a.m~). Thank you!
Gary Chao
. Associate Planner
City of Cupertino
408~777.3247 (Direct)
408.777.3333 (Fax)
From: Sarjeant [mailto:hgtv7S@yahoo.com]
sent: Wednesday, April l8, 2007 2:31 PM
To .: Gary Chao .. .. - ,
Cc: dan@bor~ego.net;.:Sa .Quan; line~jps.net; pyklaw7@comcast~net; .rhcB8@sbcglobal~net;
rwhi t t 6 ~ 13@corncast . ne:t i Pauline Wu i caine Yu i elainepet~rman@sbcglob'al. net-.; _bernielisa2 0 0.4 ~
@comcast~neti hgtv7S@yahoo.comi kpgreenly@gmail.coffi;. Charles Robidarti
ms_arj;eant@c'o11\cast ;, net.-
subject.: RE: 74,53,- Stanfor~ Place
I recieved the cburtesy notice from you in todayrs mail~~ The enclosed plan set~iS -NOT
c~nsistent with your. earlier email abo~t the rear~bay window. The plan no longei shows an
angled bay window .on the rear elevation .drawingj however the left.and. right-elevations now.
show side windows .on the protrubing second story squared bay~ You said that "no side
windows are being prqpQsed~"
Maureen Sarjeant
Gary Chao <GaryC@cupertino.org> .wrote:
8. Rear facing 2nd story bay window has been revised to a squared bay.
The- projection has been reduced from 24 inches to ~8 inches and no side.
windows are being proposed.
Ahhh.".imagining that irresistible "new carn smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
<4,,18.2007..pdf>
2
10 - 17
Gary Chao
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Caine Yu [caine-yu@yahoo.com]
Wednesday, April 18, 2007 3:20 PM
Gary Chao
sa _ quan@yahoo.com
RE: 7453 Stanford Place - REVISED PLANSET
Hi Gary:
We had a meeting with the Designer (Chen) about one week before the group meeing with you
and the other neighbors. He should have put .this somewhere in his notes.
Here are the changes ~ould be what we would like to see
1. The right.side bigger window changed to a open window now.
The non-transparent wouldn1t help much.
We'd like like to have them changed back to non-open, non-transparent,. and same size,
.~ ~ same height as the other one"
2. . Put. back the privacy tree on the ~ast side. The size of such tree should be enough to
block the; view from east side windows.
,. 3 _ 'Second floor push-back.
. ,The roof skirt only makes it looks .bet ter, -. but .no funct ional " change ~
.By adding second floor push-.back. will reduce. the reflection, "glare .and make the- whole,
str~qture central~~ed. ,.:
'Thanks
-Caine .,
.7449 Stanford Place.
Do .You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http.=j/mail.yahoo.com
1
10 - 18
page 1 at 1
Gary Chao
From: Maureen Sarjeant [hgtv75@yahoo~com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 2:31 PM
To: Gary Chao
Cc: dan@borrego.net; Sa Quan; line@jps~net; pyklaw7@comcast.net; rhc88@sbcglobal~net;
IWhitt6313@comcast.net; Pauline Wu; Caine Yu; elainepeterman@sbcgiobal.net;
berniel isa2004@comcastnet; hgtv 75@yahoo.com; kpgreenly@gmail.com; Charles Robidart;
msarjeant@comcast. net .
Subject: RE: 7453 Stanford Place
I recieved the courtesy notice from you in today's mail. The enclosed plan set is NOT consistent with
your earlier email about the rear bay window. The plan no longer shows an angled bay window on the
rear elevation drawing; however the left and right elevations now show side windows on the ptotrubing
second story sq:uared bay. You said that "no side windows are being proposed." ' .
- ' .
-Maureen Sarjeant.
... ".: J ~
Vary (hao..<GaryC@t:up~rti~lo.tJrg>.wrote:. - - ,
8. Rear facing 2nd _story bay window h~s been revised to a squared bay..
. The projection has been reduced from 24 inches to, 18 inches and no side
windows ~e being proposed.
Ahhh....iniagining that irresistible "new earn smell?
Check out n~w.car{3_at YahoQLAuto~.~
10 - 19
4/19/2007
Gary Chao
Cc:
Subject:
Larry L. Line [Iine@jps.net]
Thursday, April 12, 2007 12:16 AM
Gary Chao; Caine Yu; dan@borrego~net; Sa Quan; line@jps.net; pyklaw7@comcast.net;
rhc88@sbcglobal.net; rwhitt6313@comcastnet; Pauline Wu; elainepeterman@sbcglbbal.net;
bernielisa2004@comcastnet; hgtv75@yahoo~oom; kpgreef}ly@gmail.com; Charles Robidart
Ciddy Wordell: HAG CHEN
RE: 7453 Stanford Place - REVISED PLANSET
From:
Sent:
To:
Gary:
Thank you for your ernail. Just so I can relate to the physical situation a bit easier1
would you mind explaining the positions of the wood framing on the house and the front
yard. Is this supposed to represent the physical location of the new building? That.is,
is it and accurate representation?
I am having difficulty reconciling the comments made by the representative of the
applicant at the planning commission meeting and the position.-af the new house and portico
measured as distance from the sidewalk.. The applicant's representative-at the meeting
told me that the building would be
7 feet back from its current position~ However, the wooden posts in front indicate just
the opposite, with no. change~at all .in the position of the
garage. In addition, the applicant representative indicated. in testimony
that the proposed height of the portico was 13 feet 1 inch. As I read the plan you
attached, the height appears. to be 15 feet 5 inches. Which is correct?
I ~ ~ ~~ r ~
I will come back to you with more comments and some suggestions as :soon as' I -get, some
clarification
-----Original Message---~-.
From: Gary Chao [mailto:Garyc@cupertino.org].
Sent:. Tuesday, April 10 I 2007 10: 08 PM . .
To: Caine Yu i .. dan@borrego <0 net; Sa ~ Quan; line@jps. net_; pyklaw7@comcast. net i rhc 8-8 .
@sbcglob_al.neti rwhitt6313@comcast.netj. Pauline WUj elainepeterman@.sbcglobal.net-j
bernie Ii s a2 0 04@comcast .. net i 'hgtv7 5@yahoo . com; kpgreenly@gmail ~ com; .. C,harle.s" Robidart
Cc: Gary Chao; Ciddy Word.ell; HAD CHEN . , .. -
Subj ~c.t:. RE: 7453 Stanford Place - REVISED PLANSET
~
Hi,
I'm hoping that I've captured ALL of the email addresses of the neighbors that were at the
prior March 23, 200? neighborhood meetings, as well as the folks that attended the
Planning Commission meeting tonight. Please find attached a copy of the most" recently
revised plans that were presented to the Planning Commission on April lO, 2007. The staff
report and plans are also available at the following web link:
_http://64.165.34.13/weblink7/Browse.aspx?startid=l7799
As you all know, the Commission continued this item to its April 24,
2007 meeting in order allow the neighbors sufficient time to communicate with the
applicant and submit comments. If you wish to have your comments be included with the
staf.f report to the Commission prior to the next meeting, ple~se have them to. me by
Wednesday (April 18, 2007) of next week. Otherwise, your comments will be presented at
t'he commiss"ion meeting. Alternative if you wish, you may contact or email the
Commissioner's. Their ernail addresses are available at the following
website:
http://www~cupertino.org/city government/commissions/planning commission
/index.asp - -
I apologize to those that were not given sufficient time to review the revised plans
and/or were accidentally left out of the neighborhoo~ outreach process. I want to
emphasize that neighborhood meetings and/or. communication to the neighbors are not
1
10 - 20
required of the applicant s .here isn't a formal policy set to diet.ate the process and
scope. I have been trying my best tb be the liaison between the interested neighbors and
the applicant. Between now anq the next Planning commissionr It~ hoping to heavily rely on
your help to coordinate and reach out to those that may have opinions on this project or
would like to be part of any informal meetings that we may have. 1111 do my best to
include every one on~any correspondences and updates of the project.
Mr. Line, the notice board will be revised within- the next two days. I appreciate all of
your comments and input on this proj~ct- Please also let me know if you have any
suggestions on how to capture everyone's input in an efficient manner between now and the
next Commission meeting. Thank you.
Gary Chao
Associate Planner
City of Cupertino
408.777~3247 (Direct)
408.777.3333 (Fax)
.2
10-21
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FOU-M
Application: R-2006-62
Applicant: ~ay Chen
Property Location: 7453 Stanford Place
· '10
Agenda Date: Aprir.~ 2007
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
Community Development Director's referral of a Residential Design Review for a new,
two-story 2,693 square foot residence~
*This item was continued from the March 27, 2007 meeting due to a public notice error.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the project as proposed with the recent changes.
BACKGROUND
The applicant (Ray Chen) is proposing to construct a 2,693 square foot, two-story " ,
residence on a 5,994 square foot lot located along the north side of Stanford Place. The
immediate neighborhood is predominately ranch style single story homes (see pictures .
below). . .
Sample pictures of existing single-story ranch style homes on the same Stanford Place
1 0 - 22
R- 2006-62
Page 2
April~2007
The project site is surrounded by similar Rl-6zoning districts with the exception of the
properties immediate to the north along Tiptoe Lane that are zoned Rl-6i - single story
only (see diagram below - project property outlined in red).
Zarling map of the proj~ct area
. ..
. .
There are some two story homes around the adjacent streets and in the broader
neighborhood (see sample pictures below). The proposed two-story home takes on a
simple Mediterranean style with mission ~tyle red tile roofing and cream! coffe~ colored
. stucco walls (see perspective below;... red mission clay tiles not shown). The home is ..
consistent with tl1.e Rl Ordinance in'terms of ~~e, height and setbacks.
Sample pictures of existiIlg two story homes in the neighbor11ood
10 - 23
R-2006-62
Page 3
;0
A pril% 2007
Perspective of the proposed home
Generally, two-story permits are approved by the Community Development pirector..
,However, this project is being forwarded to the Planning Commission for final,. --
consideration due to tIle number of concerns raised by the neighborhood regarding the
design compatibility of the proposed home~
DISCUSSION
Neighborhood Concerns
Staff has received .email, of concerns from approximately 9 neighbors. In addition ~a
petition ':was submitted by 21 neighbors expressing concerns about the project. On .
March 23r 2007)' a neighborhood meeting. was held between the applicant! s architect ari'd .
.. the immediate adjoining neighbors. Please refer to the attached letters (exhibit A and B) .,
and the table in the project revision sectioll. oJ the report for additional details on the
neighbor' s concerns~
Neighborhood Compatibility
One of the principle purposes of the Rl Ordinance is to ensure a reasonable level of
compatibility in scale of structures within a residential neighborhood. This is basically
achieved by l1avilLg developmel1ts adhere to a set of specific development perimete!s
(i.e., maximum lot coverage, floor area ratio, building height, second floor to ground .
floor ratio, building setback, building envelope) to curtail development intensity to a
level generally accepted by the community:l Typically the City has allowed new hO,mes
to be maximized within the approved frame work of the Rl Ordinance provided that
the design and the style of the home are consistent and/ or compliment the
neighborhood.. New homes are expected to reduce mass and scale to the maximum
extent possible without undermining the property owner' s function~l needs. TIle City
llas not irl tl1e past required new home proposals located il1 a Rl zoning district to
match the average size or be reduced to a si11g1e sto.ry 1101ne in order to match tl1e
general pattern of the neighboring homes. .
1 0 - 24
R-2006-62
Page 4
.tQ
A prUJzr; 2007
As mentioned previously, the proposed home is within the allowable maximum
perimeter of the Rl ordinance in terms of size, height and building setbacks. However, -
there are some very simple architectural solutions that could be made to make the -
. project more in line with the style and character of the neighborhood (please see staff
recolnmendations in the table below). None. of these changes will alter the proposed
~floor plan or incur structural changes.
Privacy Protection
The project wi~l be required to adhere to the required privacy protection plan outlined
in the Rl Ordinance.. There are no second story bedroom windows facing either of the
side yards. Please refer to the table below for details on privacy mitigation measures..
Project Revisions .
Revised plans were s~bmitted on AprilS, 2007.. The following table summariz~s the
neighborhood concerns, staff suggested changes and what the applicant has done to
address each concern (additional staff recommendations in bold):
-AIchitectural and .. Change the proposed Roof revised to grey flat slate
Design mission style red slate system.
Compatibility roof material to flat slate :
Concerns roof in an earth tone
color.
Scale- and Size
:. C;:o1!LP.atibiligr
Concerns .
. Simplify the bay.
window on the front the
applican~)~
. De-emphasize the front
entry.
. Delete all of the arched
elements and introduce
wood beams, brackets or
trellis to embellish the
front elevation.
. Introduce a brick or
stone base along the
front elevation.
Introduce wood siding (or
hardiplank/fiber cement
sidings to lllimic the look
of wood) along the front
eleva tion.
The bay window'facing the front
has been lower,eg. t~o match the
ea,!_e height_of the rest of the
house.
Front entry element has been
lowered by 6 inches.
All aIched elements along the
front elevation have been
removed. Applicant conf:iImed
that the garage .door windows
will also be rectallgular in shape.
Stone base is bemg proposed
along the entire front elevation
and partial side elevations.
The applicant prefers stucco
finish. The applicant has
introduced decorative grid
p,atterns on all of the wihdows to
elmance quality texture of the
house.
The arched
element on the
side of the entry
feature should
be deleted.
The window
trim should be
increased from 3
inches to 4.5
inches..
10 - 25
R-2006-62
Page 5
Aprn!B; 2007
Privacy Impact . Revise rear facing bay The 2nd story bay window facing
Concerns window (2nd story) to a the rear has been revised to a
normal flat window or squared bay. The cantilever has
squared bay (no been reduce.d from 24 inches to
windows on the sides) 18 inches~ No windows are
being proposed on the side of
the square bay window.
Landscaping
Concerns
. Obscure or frost the
bathroom (2nd story)
windows facing the rear
and right (east) side.
. The row of privacy
screening crees should be
set back at least 12 feet
from the rear property
line in order to be
outside of the overhead
wire clearance easement*
. TIle applicant should
work with the neighbors
to the rear to clear out all
of the existing inv?lsive
vegetation and repair the
rear fence*
All of the rear and right (east)
side facing bathroom windows
have been revised to non-
transparent windows.
The landscaping plan has been
revised to reflect that the row of
privacy protection trees along
the rear has been set back at least
12 feet .from the rear property
line.
The applicant has verbally
agreed to clear out the ex~ting
mvaSlve. vegetation in the rear
yard and work with the rear
neighbors to repair the eXisting
property fencing.
Staff Comment. . ,-
The applicant has incorporated tlle majority of staff's recolTIITlended changes into_ the-.
project since the original staff went out to the Commission dated March 27, 2007.. .
The changes proposed by the applicant have effectively made the home more 'consistent
with the architectural style and design of tIle neighborhood.. Staff supports the changes
and feels that the neighbor~' concerns have been reasonably addressed.
Submitted by: Gary Chao, Associate PlalU1er
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development ;;~
ENCLOSURES
Model Resolution
Exhibit A: Emails of Concern from the neighbors
Exhibit B: Neighborhood Petition
Revised Plan Set
Material and Color Elevation.
F: \ PDREPORT\ pc \ 2007\ R-2006-62~doc
~.I
~
1 0 - 26
R-2006-62
crTY OF. CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014 ·
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY 2,693 SQUARE FOOT.
RESIDENCE.
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No..:
Applicant:
Location:
R-2006-62
Ray Chen
7453 Stanford Place
SECTION II: FINDINGS
" -
~. ; . l." . ;,. .-
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the- .Procedural ..
Ordinance. of the City of Cupertino,. and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and ;
WHEREASr the applicant l1as met the 1?urden of proof required to support'said- application; ,.
. and has satisfie.d the following requirements: " ..-, ".,". \
1. The project is consistent with the Cupertil10 General Plan, and applicable specif~c'_.
plans; zoning ordinance and the purposes of this title; .~. ~.~ ..: "
2.. The .granting of the special permit will not result in a condition that is detiimel).tal or :;
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity r and_ will not be detrimen-ral to' :.
.the public health, safety or welfare;
3~ The proposed home is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood;
4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts~ exllibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the design review application is hereby approved subject to the
conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginnil1g on page 2 thereof; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings aI1d conditiol1S specified in this resolution
are based and contail1ed in the public hearing record concerning Applicatiol1 R-2006-62 set
forth ill the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of, March 27, 2007, .and are
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
10 - 27
Resolution No:
Page 2
R-2006-62
April!&: 2007
SECTION III. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNI1Y DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1~ APPROVED PROTECT
The proposed two-story house is approved, based on the conceptual plans entitled
"Residential New Home for Mr. and Mrs~ Lin, 7453 Stanford Place, Cupertino, CA 95014"
last updated on December 18, .2006.f as amended by this resolution.. -
2. PRIVACY PROTECTION
The project is required to submit a final privacy protection planting plan consistent with
the Rl privacy protection ordinance. TIle row of required screening trees or shrubs along
the rear property line shall be planted at least 12 feet away from the property line in order
to stay clear of the over-head PG&E .wire clearance easement. The required privacy
screening trees or shrubs shall be recorded on the property as a covenant to be preserved
and maintained. Said covenant shall be r~corded - prior. to issuance of final building
occupancy. .. - .. .
'3. ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES I
The plans shall be revised to reflect the recormnended changes outlined in the staffLrep.ort
_ dated April 5, 2007. Final plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for;,revie.w
and approval pr~or to issuan~e of any ~uild~ng _p~rl?-its. .. - ,~' <.. '
4. APPROVAL EXPIRATION -
. Unless a building permit is filed and accept.ed by the ~ity (fees paid. and control number '-.
issued) within on:e year of the Two Story Per~t approval (by April5.f:2008), said appfoval t '..
shall becon:-e null and void unless a longer time 'period.w'as specifically prescribed by the ·
conditions of approval... In the event that the- building pernUt expires for any re.ason, the
Two-Story Permit'shall.'become null and void. . The Director of Community Development. .
may grant an one-year extension.f without a public notice, if an application for a Minor
Modification to the Two-Story Permit is filed before the expiration date and substantive
justification for the extension is provided~
5. NOTICE OF FEES! DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
. requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government
Code Section. 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the
alnount of such fees, al1.d a descriptiol1. of the dedications, reservations, and other
exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you
may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and otller exactions, pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-
day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this!.%'th day of April 2005, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
COmrniSSiOl1 of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by tIle following roll call vote:
10 - 28
Resolution No.
P~ge 3.
A YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
tOMWSSIONERS:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Conununity Development
R-2006-62
APPROvED:
. 1.0
A priL!B'; 2007
Lisa Geifer, Chairperson
Plarming Commission
., .
10 - 29
Page 1 of2
Gary Chao
From: Dan Borrego. [dan@borrego.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, Zq07 4:37 PM
To: Gary Chao
Subject: house at 7453 Stanford Pl...
Hi Gary,
Thank you for taking the time to talk with me to4ay regarding the house on Stanford place. I just wanted
"to send you a quick email to voice my cone.ems about the project since we share a fence, and the second
story will be looking directly into my backyard, bedroom, and living. room. As I mentioned, my house
and the others around me are under a use restriction in our CC&Rs that say we c~ot build a second
story. The concerns I have regarding this are that a house with a second story immediately adjacent to
my property will affect the desirability and/or the value of my property should I choose to sell at some
future time.. .
The owners of the property at 7453 Stanford Place do not live there, and only have the intentiol1 of
"flipping" the house. Since they are riot residents, they have no vested interest. in the neighborhood nor
the impact of their actions on the residents here. I don't feel a second story fits into this neighborhood of
single story houses and would like to go on record as being opposed to such ~ project.
However, If the project is to go forth, I would like to talk with you and the owner of the propertY about,
at least.keeping the impact to a minimum. The main issues are the size and placement ofwirtdows which,
will take privacy away from me and the. other neighbors, as w~ll as the installation of privacy screening
11?-aterials such as non-deciduous tree~ -and shru~s as mentioned. in the Rl zoning requirements. Since'
PG&E has an easement in the rear of the .yard and has demonstrated their tree.trinnning inability, the
trees planted ~hould be far enougll away from the power lines so that PG&E crews will not "top" them
and destroy the privacy that they will prov~de"
.As for t~e appearance of the house, I feel that it is being reasonable to request that materials, paint color, .
finish,. and trim that are chosen for the home, should fit with the other houses in the area, so as not to be
more pronounced and draw attention to the only two story structure in the neighborhood.
Gary this is only a fast recap of our conversation today.. I~m sure things will change by the time these
plans have gone much further along in the approval process. If I 'can tlrink of.other concerns or solutions
to the issues that I have raised, I will.let you know as soon as possible:
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Dan Borrego
1 0 - 30
2/21/2007
Page 2 of2
7508 Tiptoe Ln
Cupertinol CA 950~4
PS: I will be out .of the area from January 21st to the 28th. If YOI) need to speak
with me, please send an email and I will contact you on the 29th. Thanks.
10 - 31
2/21/2007
Executive Teal Stationery
Page 1 of 1
Gary. Chao
From: Larry L. Line [line@jps.net]
Sent: . FridaYl January 19, 2007 11 :03 AM
To: Gary Chao
Subject: 7543 Stanford Place Construction Plans
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Chao:
I .live directly across the street from the proposed construction at 7453 Stanford Place in Cupertino. I.
noticed the sign posted in front of the house 'that lists your name as the contact for the city but does
not mention a hearing date or a date by which comments must be made. I hope this omission is not
intentional.
I wish to express my concern about the design plqns. Because of the physical layout .of the current
structure on the property, the proposed building seems to be m'uch to large for the size of the lot.
Moreover, it will be excessively close to the street, magnifying the apparent monster size. There seems
to I?e no attempt whatsoever to. conform. to the general structure of housing on this street.- 'Normally, .'
I welcome modifications. to th.e houses on this street that improve both the comfort of the. homeowner. .:
but also improve the -esthetics. .This particular structure, does neither. I do not want.to seel this- -
property developed in the manner envisioned in the artists rendering.
Please advise me when there will be a hearing regarding this property. Please also advise why there
is no deadlin~ on the property notice. ~ -
- . ...." ]
Larry Line
Larry L. Line
7452 Stanford Place
Cupertino, CA 95014 USA
CA Tel: +1.408.446.3513
FAX: +1.775.261.8054
Email: line@jps.net
1 0 - 32
2/21/2007
Gary Chao
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Gary,
Patrick Law [pyklaw7@comcastnet]
Thursday, January 18, 2007 8:05 PM
Gary Chao
caine_yu@yahoo.com
Against monster home near my housel!1
AS the owner of 7443 Stanford Place, Cupertino, I would like to voice my concern of a
monster home that is planned near my house (7543 Stanford Place). Not only will it look
out of place in this neigpborhood, architecturally it is just plain ugly. AS a city
planner, this is your absolute responsibility to stop such construction which would
devalue Cupertino.
Yours sincerely,
Patrick Law
1
1 0 - 33
PETITION
February 19, 2007
To: The City of Cupertino Planning Division
Re: 7453 Stanford Place (file number R-2006-62)
We the owner-residents residing on Stanford Place and Tiptoe Lane, Cupertino wish. to
formally express our feelings concerning the proposed re-construction of the house
located at 7453 Stanford Place, Cupertino
We feel that the architectural design of the house is not in keeping with the design of the
other house~ in the neighborhood. It directly violates the Rl ordinance,
19,,28.060 Development Regulations (Building)"
C" Design Guidelines.
1. Any new two-story house, or second-story addition to an existing house, shall be
generally consistent with the adopted single-family residential guidelines" The Director
of Community Development shall review the project and shall determine that the
following items are met prior to design approval:
aft The mass and bulk of the design should be reasonably compatible with the
predominant neighborhood pattern" New construction shall not be
dispropoitionately larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms
of building forms; roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature
heights;
b. The design shoLJld use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls...
There are currently. no multi-story homes on this street.. Although many of the
homeowners have remodeled their houses, all of the houses have retained their original
design, which maintains the continuity of the established "Ranch style" architectural look
and feel. This, proposed, Mediterranean style, two-story home with a stark stucco
elevation and disp~oportionately high entryway will be an eyesore, a.nd is certainly not a
"reasonably compatible design." There are many talented architects that cant and have
.designed homes in the area that are not only harmonious with the rest of the
neighborhood but also add to it's desirability, and serve to increase property values"
Allowing this house to be built as proposed 'will set a precedent of random building that will
serve to destroy the beauty and desirability of the neighborhood..
The owners of the property at 7453 Stanford Place do not live here, and since they are not
residents, they have no vested interest in the neighborhood, or the impact of their actions
on the surrounding residents. They are simply investors with dollar signs in their eyes" The.
. approval of this project as planned will set a precedent for other speculator-investors who
want to construct "monsterll houses and change the character of our .neighborhoods in
order to make a lot of money at the expense of Cupertino residents who care about the
city, it's neighborhoods, and the quality of life here.
1/5
1 0 - 34
In addition to the negative impact .on Stanford Place, there will be a significant impact to
- the privacy of the homeowners on the south side of Tiptoe Lane. Their yards and every
window along the backs of their houses become part of the Stanford resident's view. The
Tiptoe Ln homeowner's are restricted from adding a second. story. If houses all along
Stanford Place were to begin adding second story additions their houses would surely
become less desirable, and would suffer from loss of value.
For these, and other reasons, we, the undersigned, are against the present design of this
. proposed structure. We ask that the City of Cupertino Planning Division to consider the
concerns of the residents of Stanford Place and Tiptoe Lane, please deny the approval of
this design as it is planned~
: i. : ;
2 I-
If]. .
1 0 - 35
PETITION
f.ebruary 19, 2007
To: The City of Cupertino Planning Division
Re: 7453 .Stanford Place (fife number R-2006-62)
Address
Print Name
,Signature
7403 Stanford Place
7419 Stanford Place
7443 Stanford Place
Ken and Patti Greenly
Elaine Peterman
Patrick Law
7449 Stanford Place Caine Yu
7~15 ~tanford Place
7471 Stanford Place
1 If!;; Stanford Place
.7 SL;' b Stanford Place
. ':7,+'2- Stanford Place
7lf"V~ Stanford Place
l~L 'r Stanford Place
,~c"':'i(vd: ~~c...lg~.
. ./
I / ~1! .-?
I / t'
I~ - ".7 /' /?U' AA/~~;:~?~~'~.~1
n (/.. /yrtp/./ !
t.... .. -' '
~ m:&, .~J
f~cf: Utu
~ ~. J
L~p~
f: ~ Lfh.
. .
.. .
A It ^ tJ c_ V")
. ' tI
Sah.. C~
('L IJ i'W E tJ V\
..."'"\;? ") (..
l'~:./>'
. I
u. v
N~/~
dL.=1 (U~
OLIve, C}fiX1
i ~ j~
L-et.':-'...J eit \
L~v\ e. v ~ \t.'\...... vJ'~
@~1- e6
f'EtI/1V JE44
~ ~..-_n
'........---_' . . .. -r'\~~:. ,--
~~ ---"",
J
Stanford Place
3/S
1 0 - 36
PETITION
February 19, 2007
To: ~rhe City of Cupertino Plan ning Division
Re: 7453 'Stanford Place (file number R-2006-62)
Address
.. .-:::.-..
Print Name
~ Signature
~// )~: ~f' f)lJ.
~-.'-,. / ~
- / .,...;tr-- - ,V ;' !
~
7438 Stanford Place
RIchard Dl Whittington.
7452 Stanford Place . Larry L~ Line
.J- K;;=t'H'le \ri Ne
14~1.- Stanford Place V 1f)~~f8f.A: .
--r---( ~ 'v Stanford Place N\ A \-\ 2- 5:-\.\-- ~
'~&a~~Pla~~~~~_
Stanford Place
Stanford Place
Stanford Place
Stanford Place
Stanford Place
Stanford Place
Stanford Place
4/_
]
10 - 37
PETITION
February 19, 2007
To: The City of Cupertino Planning Division
Re: 7453 Stanford Place (file number R-2006-62)
Address
Print Name
Sig~'F-
~---
/7
~\euVJ ~" -
~
7488 Tiptoe Lane
LI Hua Ho Lee
7496 Tiptoe Lane
Mary & Skip Robidart
7508 Tiptoe Lane
Dan Borrego
7"\ \~ Tiptoe Lane
~~
'7 5). ~ Tiptoe Lane
6rJ HlL ~ PRA/iCH\ ~c.JtRrJ1{
~cV'
/5.Lf 0 Tiptoe ~ane
.'0 i1 .....;;/ ~
l., t I - --
/-;. 'A
J L:/ .. -.d l.---cJ_-c--v....-/
. Tiptoe Lane
Tiptoe La ne
Tiptoe Lane
Tiptoe Lane
Tiptoe Lane
Tiptoe Lane
5/S-
1 0 - 38
Cupertino Planning Commission
April 10, 2007
Exhibit C
. restaurant has d
the space.
\, llUp.L U V \;.-J.J-J...........u. P""J. J..U..I." ...'-' f-'.i. "-'_'100'--""" _Jl...._ ...... _..3 mess license to occupy
Ciddy Wordell:
. Said that staff w
need to.
Ms~ Tamblyn or others from the neighborhood if there was a
2. R-2006-62
Ray Chen (Lin
Residence)
7453 Stanford Place
Residential Design Review for a new~ .two-stOry 2,693
square foot residence. Planning COlnlnission
decision final unless appealed. Postponed frOl11. the
March 27, 2007Planning Conu1Jiss.ion nxeeting.
Gary Chao, Associate Planner, presented the staff report: .
. He reviewed the application for residential design review for a new two-story 2,693 square
foot residence, as outlined in tIle staff report , .
Reported that neighbors are concerned with neighborhood compatibility, specifically the mass
and the.scale of the project, as well as the architectural style of the proposed house. Some
neighbors have expressed concerns about privacy impacts and landscaping maintenance~
'. Section 19.28.060 of the Rl Ordinance addresses 'design guidelines with regards to the
neighborhood compatibility. .One of the main purposes of the Rl ordinance is to ensure a
reasonable l~vel of compatibility in terms of scale and mass within the neighborhooda J.be RI
has a set of development standards. The City has not in the past required property owners to
match the average square footage or floor area of the neighborhood. If. it is designed in a
reasonable fasmon that the applicant used materials and architectural styles,. color of materials
consistent with the neighborhood that it is found to be acceptable~ Since the neighborhood
. meeting on March 23, the applicant has made some revisions to the project
. He referred to the front elevations and reviewed the proposed changes. The applicant removed
the arches to be more consistent with the neighborhood; the garage door window has been
squared off; a stone ven~er siding .along the base of the front elevation wrapping around the
corner is proposed; the entry canopy has been dropped by six inches; more design oriented grid .
. patterns on top of the windows to introduce elements consistent with the neighborhood have
been introduced. The applicant is proposing a beige earth tone .color and has elected to stay
away from the mission style red cl~y tile roofmg; opting with a flat slate roofmg system in
gray charcoal color as sho,vn in the exalnple. In r~sponse to some of the neighbors' concerns
with the bay window on the se.cond floor, the applicant has squared off the bay window and is
limiting tpe -wiPdows to the front and not having windows al~ng the sides of the square bay
\vindow. In addition the bathroom window on the second floor. is no"\v a non-transparent
window. The applicant has elected to continue a roof skirt. around the first floor to break up
the mass of the second story wall~ .
. Some additional options that the Planning Comniission can make regarding enhancing the
texture and also the style of the home is tp consider requiring the applicant to provide smooth
stucco finish. The architect has offered that there is an option to increase the window trims
from 3 inches to 4.5 inches. Staff feels it is appropriate as it enhance~ the look of the h~use
and gives it more definition around the windows and gives it a more shadowed effect.
. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project vvith the revised plans as
. proposed by.the applicant and with the recoTI1l11ended changes by staff.
, Vice Chair Chien:
. Asked staff to address the side of the house that is not set inwards on the s~cond story; He said
he understood that second stories have to be set back from the first story, and asked how it
applies.
10 - 39
. Cupertino Phinn~g Commission
4
April 10, 2007
Gary Chao:, .
. Said it was generally true; the ordinance requires on the second floor a minimum of ten foot
side yard setback~ ill terms of articulation we would like to have if possible on all four sides to
have some sort of breakage at least a couple of feet The way thy ordinance addresses that is
by requiring no more than 50% of the perimeter second floor wall be not over 6 feet exposed~
The project actually meets that rule. By nature of limiting that to 50% that means some of the
walls can be flushed and one of the side walls is one of those walls~ Visually that wall is
broken up further by the skirt the. applicant is. proposing along that side, and it meets the
ordinanc~. The applicflnt does have the ability to have certain part of the wall straight up and
f1 ushed.
Vic~ Chair Chien: ,
. Asked if the second story portion on the east side is set 5 feet in from the frrst story skirt
Gary 'Chao:
. The right side elevation is flushed, it goes straight up; the ordinance allows that. He said the
applicant can be asked to explore the option of either bumping the ground floor wall out to
give it a more structural relief or to consider further recessing tllat wall back~ Initially that wall
was at five feet on the ground floor, the second floor went straight up and that was inconsistent
with the ordinance so the applicant changed it tq ten feet .
Vice Chair Chien:
. Clarified that it is set an additional five feet in. He said it appeared from the set plan and what
was in the bind~r that it was flush. (Staff responded that it was flush.)
Ciddy Wordell:
. The confusion was because initially the frrst floor was set back five feet and th~ second. floor
was also set back 5 feet which was incorrect. The applicant moved the entire thing back 10
feet to Inake it meet the ordinance resulting in.it being straight up.
Chair Giefer:
. Clarified that it was 10 feet from the property Inle~ We are confusing the second story setback
with the setback from the property line; .and using setback. interchangeably referring to both
items in the discussion~
Gary Chao:
. Said .it was not an ordinance requirement .that the second floor has to be recessed. from the
grou~d floor. He said the applican~'s ~chitect would address if there is any way additional
offsets can be made.. .
. Said that the second floor setback is required, and a way to view the right elevation is that the
ground floor setback is more than what is required as they only have to set it back 5 feet; for
the second floor the code requires a Imnimum of 10 feet The applicant decided to shift the
house to the left to meet the entire second flopr and ground requirement The ground floor is . .
required to. have 15 feet combined, a minimum of 5 fe.et; what is shown is that they have 5 feet
on the left side on the gropnd floor, and 10 feet on the right side Wl1ich meets the ground floor
setback requirem.ents. On the second floor the requirelnent is 25 feet combined; they have 15
feet on the left side and 10 feet on the right side, The ordinance does not require a recess from
the ground floor; it just says that 50% of that has t<;> be inw They meet that requirement
1 0 - 40
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
April 10, 2007'
Ciddy Wordell:
. Said she viewed it as an exPedient; in the past many things have been appealed and rather than
hav~ to go tlrrough multiple steps it seems more efficient that it comes directly to the Planning
Connnission.
Chair Giefer: .
. For clarification, regarding the second. story bepause of the combined side yard set backs in
this particular case they electe~ to push the right side of the home to the 10 foot side yard
setback~ What would the implications be if it was more centered on the home?
Gary Chao: . . .
. Said it would be appropriate for the architect to respond to Cllair Giefer's question. .
. He said staff's preference would b~ to hav~ all four sides have some recess which was
suggested to the applicant The applicant looked at the option and felt it would mix up too
much of his floor plan. He .would rather pick. up the house and move it further to the left and
give the neighbor more distance and then visually address that blank wall with a s~.
Ray Chen, project engineer and architect:
.. Said that relative to setbacks, they have incorporated all the impacts to the neighbors when
doing the design.
. Sai~ that orjginally it .was a 10 foot setback on ~he right side; by doing a 10 foot .setback and
the second story on the right side, the adjacent neighbor has 10 feet setback. on that side, which
totals 20 foot building separation~ . .
. He said on the left side there was a 15 foot setback on the second story, which is the staircase'
plus the neighbor's 5 foot setback, which gives another 20 feet on the left side of building
separation~ He noted that the house sits in the middle of the lot.
. He said. the property owner paid fair market price"to buy the lot which under the. city ordinance
allows a second story, and they feel.it is fair to allow them to build the second story.
Chair Giefer:
. Asked the applicant if he considered centering the second story over the fIrst story of the
home?
Ray Chen:
. Responded no, that they attempted to do that but it increased the structure of the home. As a
structural engineer he said he would like to have at least one wall sitting on on~ side and by
doing so, minimize the impact giving more setbacks to the neighbor, which would minimtle~
the impact
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing~
Charles Robidart, Tiptoe Lane:
. Said his property was the. adjoining property to the northern boundary of the subject property,
sharing approximately a 32 foot length of fence in common which represents about 60% of the
lot width of the proposaL
. Said he was opposed to the staff recommendation and he and SOUle of his ;neighbors felt the
project was inappropriate for the location.
.; He said he did not want to di.scuss whether the quantifiable resolutions or ~egulations are at
issue; but specifically that Chapter 19~28 Single Family Residential Rl zones contains a
nun1ber of qualitative requirements for comp~tibility and for a house in the neighborhood and
10-41
Cupertino Planning Cornmissi~n
6
April 1 0, 2007. .
they felt that those qualitative n1easures have not been met. He said their findings were tha~
19~28.010 Part B -and Part C were not being conformed to; 19.28.040 if it is called into play, is
not being conformed to; and 19.28.060 Part C is not being conformed to~ They are specific
areas they feel the qualitative measures of this project are not in conformance With the City of
.Cupertino's o.ViIl 'codes on Rl zoning. . .
. We believe that the assessments of those qualitative errors lie in five major aspects that have
not been properly taken into account. In considering the proposed dw.elling with respect to the
adjacent properties, we believe there has not been enougl1. emphasis given to that portion of the
north side, the Lowell Hurst Development Specifically. this is zoned \vith an "i" for single
fan1ily residence structures only. As such, any tw"o story stnicture on the north side of Stanford
Place immediately puts itself at o9ds ,vith the neighborhood, which has already been regulated
to single story at least on one side; and yet to put a two story house inunediately produc'es a
conflict between the one and two story structures. .
. Secondly, there are no existing large square footage homes either single story Qf two story on
Stanford Place; the actual pictures shown of two story houses are not on Stanford Place, they
are on other streets. Depending on how you want to defrne neighborhood, there is no support
for compatibility for a structure. of this size or design within the neighborhood. We would like
to point out that we don't feel that the .easement problem with PG&E, the phone company, and
the cable COTI1pany has been properly addressed~ .
. They have had some discussions where the applicant J1as agreed to plant the. trees at 12 feet
away frQID the fence so that in the future the trees will not interfere with the lines, and PG&E
won't have to come and lop off the tops of them, which would defeat the purpose of the
_ privacy. It is calculated that the trees need to 1-'e 14 to 16 feet tall, with 15 foot canopies, with
four of them on the property. She said it was a huge problem- for the property to have that
many trees of that size in order to provide the privacy that the regulations call for. Your own
regulations call for the maintenance of privacy of the neighbors and that can orily be achieved
,by my calculations with yery large trees on the property and a number ofthem~
. He said in the Code there are many references to compatibility with the neighborhood. He said
his response would be so~ewhat dated since he did not see the modified plans. He. attended a
meeti~g tvvo weeks ago where they spoke with Mr. Chen and raised their concerns; Mr. Chen
went away arid n1ade modifications which tlley s~w only 15 -minutes prior to thjs meeting. He
. said they had no way of lmowing ,,,hat the new plan 1001es like, but from what they have seen'
.and been told by Mr.. Chen, he boasted of the fact that this project was the third
implementation of the identical floor plan and. design that had already been approved twice by
Cupertino. He said as a neighbor he was concerned, and questioned whether they had some
kind of richness of neighborhoods, or some kind of diversity where it is not necessary that
because it got approved in one neighborhood it must be rubber stamped into a second
neighborhood. He asked if it was possible that the n~ighborhoods differ and therefore what is
compatible with one is not compatible with another~ He said they don't see the fact that this
plan has been adopted twice within the city of Cupertino sets any kind of positive precedent;
they feel it sets a negative precedent, that it is simply being robber stamped because it has been
done.before.
- . He said in his opinion the notification process was flawed.. The item was supposed to have
taken place. on a previous agenda for this Commission; it was not done because the city of
Cupertino discovered it in mailing out notices to the vvrong addresses~ H~ said they were not
properly 11otified, and .the meeting had to be put back and she h.ad not seen the new plans'
except for 15 minutes pri~r to the start of the meeting.
. Relative ~o the issues of landscape privacy, to mitigate privacy impacts and the visual nlass and
bulk of new tvvo story homes and additions, tree or shrub planting is required, which is a quote
from the Code~ He said that the privacy planting l1as inherent conflicts with it based on the
easements from tIle utility and based upon the size of th~ necessary trees, but the privacy issue
1 0 - 42
~upertino Planning Commission
7
Ap~110,2007
must be addressed and maintainedw He asked that the Commission. and the applicant go on
public record tonight to explain what is going to be able to be done and what can'be done to
protect the privacy and compatibility and the integrity of the neighborhoods.
. Saiq his neighbor requested a set ofpl~s on behalf ofhoth of them.
Dan Borrego, Tiptoe Lane:
. Said he shared about 40% <?fthe applica~t's rear fence line.
.. Relative to la.ndscape requirements, he recommended not only that the trees be put in, but that
they.be a particular size to maintain privacy that is there. He said it was unfair for the residents
to give up their privacy for the next three or four years fqr some small trees to grow to
suffi ci ent size.
. Said tl1ey extrapolated the height of this house, where the windows are located, and the.
distance to their own houses and Mr. Robidart did calculatiol1S and found that the trees would
need to be between 12 aI1d 16 feet tall when they are planted in order to provide that privacy.
The RI doesn't mention that the . trees need to be.12 and. 16 feet tall, and he did not want to
wait five or six years to go in his back yard without people staring at him out of their windows.
This house seems to have been approved without giving any consideration to the zoning of the
property next to it. He said .it appears to happen all .over Cupertino, but after the first one
happened it should have raised some red flags and put that on the checklist of iten1S to be
concerned with before approving these types ofprojects~ .
. Asked the Commission to request that the applicant work with-the neighbors to chose mutually
agreeable. trees or shrubs' of the appropriate size and type, and tllen also ask that they consider
putting a covenant on the deed of the home so that the rear elevation cannot be changed and
the next ovroer cam10t take out the frosted window out and put a clear one in, or put in a bay
window. If there is a covenant, the Planning Department has some leverage to deny. such an
application or request in the future; whereas if it is not done, they have to go through the whole
process again.
Vice Chair Chien:
. Asked Mr. Borrego if he attended the meetings with the architect, and-if.he was aware of the
changes that they were going to make as a result of this meeting~
Mr. Borrego: ..
. Responded that there W('lS one meeting. He said the architect would request the changes and
that he would get back_to them and he assumed they would be talking to him prior to this, so
that none of this would likely be on ~e agen~a tonight. He said he was aware of the 11
changes stated at the beginning of the meeting; but wanted to ensure it was done appropriately.
He said he was not satisfied with the size of the tree that is going to be planted.
Com~ Wong:
. SUlnmarized that Mr. Borrego's coneenl was. notification; that the process is already
.prescriptive in the ordinance and he felt he was 'not properly notified~ It would have also been
helpful to have seen a.landscaping plan or privacy protection plan ahead of the public hearing
instead of at the eleventh hour. .
. You. are aware that this is zoned Rl and you want some kind of consideration that if there was
a two story home on the boundary of the one story overlay, that there would be some kind of
considera ti on.. -" .
Mr. Borrego:
. Said .if he had seen a landscaping plan and discussed it prior to coming here, that wO\J.ld not
have been something he would have stated~ He would have already told the architect that an 8
1 0 - 43
CU1Jertino Planning Commission.
8
April 10,2007
foot tall tree is not ~ppropriate; and that a Rl-6i should not end next to an Rl where it shares a
property line; maybe across the street, but it should not end anywhere in the city where- it
shares a property line.
Ciddy Wordell:
. Explained the tvvo story liInitation and w~at the "i" m_eans in a zoning district The "j" overlay
zone requires a use permit in an RI. zoning district if somebody wants to seek -to have a second
story. There are a few areas in Cupertinq, and there have only. been a few people apply for a
second story through the use pennit process. It means that somebody possibly could have a
second story in an "i" district; now that there is a public review process. fQr all second stones,
there is not a huge difference betvveen the "i" and tlle regular Rl; both of them now have some
_ form of public review; it is just that the. "i" is probably a higher hurdle to jump over. The
public review is there for both. _
. Said th~ privacy planting is required to be on a covenant which is recorded on the title and it is
possible that if there is something else that the Planning Commission wants to. have
highlighted to any future property ovmer, that could be called out as ~el1.
Bernard-Kalvelagt, Tiptoe Lane:
. He 83:id he thought it was a travesty, ~nd that as a compassionate neighbor, l1e would feel
infringed upon if somebody built a two story house overlooking his yard~
. He said that it stated the project was consistent with the Cupertino General Plan and applicable
specific plan, but it was obvio~s when walking down the street that it was inconsistent with the
neighborhood~ .
. He urged tlle Planning Commission to 'use their best judgment regarding the application.
Elena Herrera, Granola Drive:
. She said she felt with the ordinance as ,witten, the Planning Commission had. the ability to rule
on this case simply and clearly~ The proposed ~ouse is not compatible with the neighborhood;
the "i" overlay withstanding or not, a major change is being made to the street if we start going
down a two story road and this neighborhood doesn't have the same situation I l1ad where so
_ ll1any of them are going to b.e rebuilt in the near future~ Cupertino feels very much that their
neighborhoods are strong, that their community is strong and I urge you to respect the
cOffilnunity's voice in front of you tonight.
. Landscaping as mitigation; there was a case in recent months where the landscaping covenant
was not recorded properly and some yery old grovvth trees were cut down next door to her
home because it was not recorded. properly.
. With regard to noticing errors, she urged the Planning Commission t~ take seriolJ-sly th_e
. mistakes that .have occurred in the past and COlTt?ct them.
. Said it should be recognized that .it is the existing families in the communities that have made
the schools what they are today. Respect these communities; they are the children in these
. families that. are setting the high scores 'in the schools that are making the properties so
desirable. She said the Plannillg Commission has the ability to say no or yes when it is
appropriate she urged them to do so.
Richard Whittington, Stanford Place:'
. Expressed concern with the front appearance of the house, stating it had too much bulk. He
said he had no comment on the architecture, but was concerned about the portico area in the
front which is garish and stands out
. Opposed to the application.
1 0 - 44
Cupertino Planning Connrrission
9
April 10,2007
Jennif~r Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: .
· Said she felt the building ordinance has come a long way in Inaking sure that two story homes
· that are delivered to the community are much more compatible in size than they were when
they were built under the County rules; In this situation, Stanford Place is an extremely
beautiful neighborhood; it is virgin territory for two story homes, ranch styles homes
completely up and down the street
· She anticipated that the neighborhood in thirty or forty years would still be predominantly
ranch style homes; .remodeled in a ranch style as a traditional type of architecture nt Cupertino.
She said it was helpful that city staff was able to work with the architect to try to modify the
two story home; I do think that in this situation since this is the first two story on. this street or
.many homes, that if one .does construct '\ hvo story, it should .be wood sided, ranch style, slate
.foofis more appropriate, and ensure that there are lower'eaves~
· She expressed disappointment that the rigl?t side of the home had no second story setbacks; it
appears that staff has worked diligently to try to make sure that there was some sort of
arti cuI ati on.
· Said she has been following the last tlrree years of Rl ordinance and innumerable meetings
with the Board of Supervisors in the County; and she understood that there has to be a second
story setback on all four sides, regardless. of how far the home is from each si.de~ If it isn'~ we
need to look at that,. because you don't want. 27 feet of stucco going straight up in the air,
whether you are 5 or 10 feet from the side. Also, if you plant trees in the back yard even 12
feef from tile back PG&E easement, PG&E will cut their tops off and we need to make sure
.that is taken into aqcount. If we have a second story overlay we need to make sure property
values are not being reduced.
Larry Line, Stanford Place:
· Said that there .were no other homes in the neighborhood with a 7 foot long poJ:tico in front.
The portico on the proposed home is about 8 feet from th~ street and makes a large home look
. monstrous, and I would like something to do to take that away~ There used to be a big tree in.
the front yard that was cut down recently. . Relative. to the Municipal Code, he said that he
notified Gary Chao in January that the information that is required under Chapter 19k~8
Section 1, the notification_process did not nleet the requirements of the Municipal Code~
· He said staff did not notify him about the meetings with architects although he lived directly
across the street; the first time he heard about the changes was today'at 5 p.m~ He said he was
not satisfied with the way the city government was p.andling it .
· He said the entire process is defective if it is approved without following each part of tile
Municipal Code.. , .
· He commented that .behind his house was a two story house that is intrusive on his p~rsonal
privacy. He said with the new plan there was not enough room to plant a tree in the front yard.
. Opposed to the application.
Gary Chao:
· Relative to the. entry feature, it is TIl0re thaI1 20 feet setback.from the property line; he was not
certain where the 8 foot setback figure came from as reported by Mr. Lyon.
· The circular columns have been squared off; there are four columns, the front columns are
about 4-1/2 feet protrudi1)g beyond the face of the house and the two rea! columns are actually
.part of the building. It is about 4-1/2 to 5 feet of protrusion from the house, but is set back
U10re than 20 feet
Chair Giefer:.
· As part of our notification process, when one builds a, seCOlld . story home, we notify the
neighbors on either side, :the rear neigl)..bors, do we notify the neighbor across the street? Do.
1 0 - 45
.Cupertino Planning Commission
10
April 10,2007
we mail plans to a specific subset of that When you received the. new plans, is the city under -
obligation to mail. those out to those. neighbors to re-notify them of what - really is being
- proposed before the public hearing.
Gary Chao:
. Said that every neighbor within 300 feet of the project are notified; all the neighbors get a set
of plans. Generally speaking, if there is enough time, staff would re-notifY the neighbors;
however, in-this case there was not enough time to do so.
.Com. Kaneda:
. Said that the privacy requirements state that the trees have to grow to a certain height within a
certain amount ,of time. He asked if the proposed tre_es meet those ~equirements.
Gary Chao:
. The ordinaI1Ce has a preapproved list of shrubs or trees; it does also require a minimum, if the
.applicant chooses trees in tins case, the minimum planting size is 24 inch box. and minimum
planting height is 8 feet at the time of planting. Shrubs are 15 gallon and 6 feet at the time of
planting. ,
. Said it met the requirements; the applicant is proposing 24 mch box minimum trees and they
would have to adhere to the minimum planting height of 8 feet unless something taller is
specified.
. Said you could require a larger tree to be planted; it cost more but would offer more immediate
privacy relief; however, we have been told by our aiborist that based on tile size, '24 inch box,
8 feet; it is a good balance between allowing the trees to be able to adapt to the soil when they
are young enough ,to do so. We have been told by our arborist that it will grow faster as
opposed to planting a huge tree that may not be accustomed to the area or the environment.
COill.-l\1i.lIer:
. There are nvo dimensions we are working with; one is the overall heig~t and the other is the
depth of the structure to begin with, and I am still not sure why it needs to be that depth, and
one of the disadvantages is it creates a lot ~f .shadow on the. front doot.
Ciddy Wordell: _
. The code for the "i" overlay, means that if you want to do a second story, you must seek a use
pennit from the Plann1l1g Ct?mmission~
Com. Wong:
. If somebody wanted to do a second story, they could do it, but it has to go through a use permi~
and l1as more scrutiny, and that be pertained through that ordinance~
. lIe clarified that the pertinent application is an RI-6, which means that eve~ though there is
90% one story, eventually the neighborhood could' go two stories, whicll is prescriptive by the
ordinance~
. Relative to notification, is it only t11~ first round that the frrst 300 feet g_et notified? If there are
any changes does that push the public hearing later so - that the neighborhood does have a
chance to take a look at the new plans and there won't be as much misunderstanding a's we are
hearing tonight? He said he recalled one of the reasons for the- 2005 -revisions was to improve
notification and if for some reason there were last minute changes, that there had to be some
mechanism to prevent last minute changes and then present it at the dais and take a chance.
1 0 - 46
Cupertino Planning Commission
11
April 10,2007
Ciddy Wordell:
. The procedure tonight is. different from what we have .done with the previous Rls~ This is the
first referral offue Director to the Plarming Commission directly of an Rl approval since there
was a lot of neighborhood interest; there is no code requirement that the neighbors had to get a.
copY. of the' revised plans, and as Gary Chao explained, there was a very tight turnaround. It
would have been helpful if there had been more time and if they had been notified that the
plans were on .the website or they could come and pick them up; and that pro~edure will be.
followed in the future.
. Said the findings for a use permit are specific; granting a second story is. discretionary in an
Rl-6i, it is not automatic. fu the Rl-i you are able to have a second story~ .
Com. Miller:
. Said.there were some issues raised at the public hearing; one was that once there is a border
between an Rl area and an Rl-i area, he pointed out that the neighbors have a voice in the
decision to go to an Rl area. He. asked staff to confirm if a certain percentage of the
neighborhood signed a petition that they want it, would it be granted?
Ciddy Wordell:
. There isn't a hard and fast rule on that; we have not 11ad anyone inquire about it in the last 8 to
10 years. The last time we used it, we used an ad hoc percentage tllat we wanted to see two-
thirds support and tl1ey did not bave it, so the last attempt there was not an "i".
Com. Miller:
. He pointed out t11at any neighborhood can do that by collecting a petition from the neighbors
and if at least two-tllirds of the neighborhood wants to limit the houses to one story, it in effect
becomes an Rl-i neighborhood with an overlay' on it~ One neighborhood ~hose to do that arid
this neighbo.rhood which application is being considered, did not choose to do that In this
neighborhood they do have the right to' have two story .homes.
. He said it was always. an iss~e between what is fair for the neighbors and what is fair for the
property owner; and it becomes an issue of property rights and at sOlp-e point in. time a
neighbor will want t~ sell his property or redevelop his property, and houses over a period of
40 or 50 years tend to become outdated in terms of functionality. It has to be balanced, what is
fair for the neighbors, and the biggest issue with the neighbors is privacy; and what fair is for
the individual homeown.er in terms of he purchased the property and what are his rights under
the ordinance:s to develop it. and expand it. .
. FrOTIl the standpoint if two stories' should be allowed or not, the code does allow it as long at it
meets the requirelnents of privacy and we ,"'ant to make sure that happens. I don't see that as
an issue under debate.
. .The issue of cOlnpatibility of the neighborhood is important, and it is subjective. A number of
people have pointed out that the main issue is the portico in front, and it is very prominent The
architect or' homeowner could consider reducing the prominence of that portico which may be
more acceptable to the neighborhood. It is reasonable for staff t~ c.onsider that and work with
the architect to reduce the prominence of the portico ap.d make it more compatible and
acceptable with the neighborhood.
. Said he struggled with the issue of notification because staff said the next time everyone would
get notified, however this tilne they didn't get notified. He said that even though he was
inclined to accept the application, .ifthe neighbors haven't.had a chance to look at the changes
and raise their concerns, it is reasollable to continue the application to.allow them to do that
and bring it baclc a~d perhaps over that period of time, people will feel more comfortable.
. He noted that on the prospecti,re, the portico was shown with ,vhite columns which stand out
and make it more prominent. He recoriunended that the colmnns blend in with the rest of the
10 - 47
Cupertino Planning Commission.
12
April10,2007
front structure. ' He s~id aside from that, he was inclined to favor allowing the homeowner to
go ahead land do his two story addition an'd allow him to make reasonable use of his property,
given the reas.onable restrictions~ .
· Noted that the hOn1eQ~er complied with the letters of the ordinance and has gone along with
staffs suggestions in terms of making this house more compatible with the neighborhood.
Com. Wong:
. Said the concern is mamly communication which is clearly not goo~ connnunication between
the applicant and the neighbors.
· He said he visited the site and vie,ved the picture in front of the property. He commented that
if he lived in the neighborhood, he would be concerned especially looking at the fout white
. columns.
· He said that if the information provided to the Planning Commission, on Thursday would have
been given to the neighbors earlier, they would have had a chance to s~e the elevation and see
how it was changed, so that it looks better, and also would be better informed. He said they
may not agree ifitis compatible or not; it is in the mind oft11e viewer.
. The ordinance is prescriptive; he said he understood ~he concern that being in an ,Rl-6i, that
you want a. consideration that you are abutting an Rl neighborhood which is- allowed to have
two story homes~
· SOIne people don't like to use, the word ''transitional'' but it is prescriptive for them that in this.
particular zoning, they are allowed to build 'a tvvo story home, an:d how can this Commission
look and mitigate it so that it can blend into .the neighborhood~
. He said the elevations presented were fine.
· Regarding the landscaping for privacy protection, there will be 24 inch boxes, that will be in .
the covenant; they will be 8 feet tall; it will take 3 to 5 years, but that is part of the prescriptive
ordinance; it cannot be changed tonight
· Said he agreed that -the portico should be reduced; the height should be lowered as it is not
cOlnpatible witll the neighborhood. .
. Said he was aware tl1at it was difficult to see a two story home going into the neighborhood,.
especially as it was the -first one on the north side of Stanford Place. He said if there was better
communication, the process would have been better.
Vice Chair Chien:
. Expressed concern about the notification process, stating that the neighbors should have a
chance to iook at .the most recent plans. Said he supported the process to give. everyone a
chance to see what is in writing, what has been drawn and a chance to respond.
· 'Said he did not support many of the arguments presel1ted about why the house is incompatible.
He said he did not agree that a house should be designed by the neighbors, but should be
designed by the architect, with the neighbor~ having input. He said not mallY people would
want their house designed by their neighbors; it is a self-interest issue, a property right matter
and if you were going to build a house, you would' want your architect and yourself to have
input, and not by a unanimous vote of your neighbors. .
. The applicaJlt has gone to great 'lengths to make changes based on a meeting set up between
tIle neighbors and the applicant. If the neighbors are given more time to look at the new set of
plans, he said he expected that if the neighbors. have concems,.they also bring back alte1!1atives
of what they would like~ Many things are subjective, aJ.1d wh~n it is asserted to the Planning
Commission on the night of the hearing that something is not compatible, and there are no
facts to support that, it is difficult for the_ Planning Connnission to make that fmding. ,
· Said he did not have a problem with the house, but was willing to support an additional two
weeks fot t~e neighbors to look at the plans.
1 0 - 48
Cupertino Plam1ing COlnmission
13
April 10, 2007
Com. Kaneda:
. Agreed with Vice Chair Chien with the concerns about how the information on the revised set
of plans went out and that the neighbors were not noticed. .
. Agreed with the remaining commissioners that it was inappropriate to stop a two story
building in this area. Although next to an R6i zone, this house is not in that zone, and you
cannot just keep pushing the borders of the zone out There are privacy. issues, but the code
covers. that and the architect came up with a plan that meets the requireU1ents. He said he was
satisfied with that
. Expressed concern about the style of the portico, but said he felt it could be worked out with
the neighbors.
. Said he agreed that continuing the application. for two weeks would allow the architect to work
Witll the ne:ighbors to address their concems~
Chair Giefer:
. Said she had an issue with both the height and the size of the portico as we,ll as the color being
one that stands out. - She said she agreed that it needs to be re~uced.
. Expressed concern that there is no second story offset on the right side of the home. The
mechanical engineer th~t spoke representing the cliept talked about how the home is centered
between the tvvo adjacent homes but the second story is not centered on the home w~ch it is
on~ She said she was concern~d regarding the design because it appears lopsided and the
neighbor on the right hand side is going to get a lot of reflectivity from that long wall. She
said she would like to see more articulation or a second story setback~
. Said that she did not reconnnend planting Madrones in the yard for landscape privacy as it was
a slow growing tree. .
. Said she agreed that in an RI zoning district, they could not prohibit the owners from building
a second story home. It is difficult for the neighborhood to accept the change and by rights the
landowner does have that opportunity, and the city tries to .protect the privacy through different -
mechanisms that run with the land and are recorded with the deed. -
. Relative to notification, it is unfortunate the neighbors .were not given an opportunity to study
the plans the Planning Commission received, even though they are available on the internet.
For those people who don't attend the city meetings all the time, it is new information. It is
unfair to the current neighbors who have come here. tonight that they haven't had' the
opportunity to study the plans and have the owner of the homes architect or project manager
explain tIle changes made. .
. Said she supported continuance of the item to give more time for the neighbors to study the
plans, and have allother neighborhood meeting with the property owner's representative to talk
about the changes. She said that when the item returns to tIle Planning Commission if specific
needs are still not met, they should be brought back to the Cornmissjon. She pointed out that
the property owner has rights as well and "the role of the" Plalli1ing Commission is to help work
out those issues as well as bring the neighborhood together because changes happen~
Motion: Motion by Vice Chait Chien, second by Com. Miller, to continue Application
R-2006-62 to the April 24, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0)
None
None
10 - 49
~upertino Plarming Commission
6
April 24, 2007
Pin Ghosh:
· Said that Public Works Department would have to provide the' answer if using swales would
suffice for drainage; however, the difference between this project and the project that air
Giefer is referring to, is was on this project they have used a lot of pervious pavers" wever,
project on Crescent Court was going to be all asphalt"..wmch i!? why staff didn' commend.
the colation trench. that the Crescent Court applicants came up with.
Com. Wong:
· Said he was ill comfortable leaving it status quo, since the pro
- and .Public Warks
was a unique property
Pin Ghosh:
. Said that on the previous pr · ct, they installed a
driveway and added a 3x3 trenc
drain pipe to catch the water, with el aro
basin and run do\V!l the dr.ainpipe and per
tch basin at the - lowest point in. the
ounded under the asphalt_with a French
it. The water would be caught at. the catch
d through the gravel into the ground.
Com. Kaneda:
· Said he supported the concept of oswales if they .11. accomplish something; o~erwise he
did not support putting theln in. t for the sake of putti
Pin Ghosh:
. Said the condition co
e worded as such~ depending on the typ
Motion: Com. Miller, -second by Com~ Wong, to approve A -2007-01, .
07-01; TM-2007-01, EA-2007-01 per the model res tion with
e ptions that t~e Deod~r. Cedar be replaced by a Redwood
cceptable tree; and that the box sizes be' liinited to 48 inches. (Vote: -
Ste iasecki:
Stated it was a final action of the Planning Commission unless appealed to City COlU1cil within
14 days.
-2006-02
Ray Chen
(Lin residence)
7453 Stanford PI.
Residential Design Review for a new, two-story 2,693 square
foot residence~ - Planning COlnmission decision final unless appealed.
Continuedfi"olnAprillOJ 2007 Planning COlnmission lneeting~
Gary Chao, Associate Planner, presented the s~aff report: ..
· Reviewed the bacl<ground of the applicatiol1 for a review of a residential design review for a
new, two-story, 2,693 square foot residence.. _The apPlication was discussed at the April ~ 0,
2007 Planning .Commission meeting, and continued to allow sufficient time for the neighbors
to review the revised plans and have the applicant reduce the front entry feature.
· He reviewed tlle responses to the neighbors' concerns and input, and the changes made by the
appliCa11t since-the April10th meeting, as outlined in the staffreport
· Staffreconnnends approval of the applicant with the recormnended changes.
Ray Chen, applicant: ,
. _Said since the" April 10th. Planning Conm1ission m~eting, they explored ll18.ny options in
response to the neighbors' concerns, and verbally agre.ed to work with the- rear nei.ghbors to
plant taller privacy protection trees in response to their concerns about privacy impacts. There
1 0 - 50
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
April 24, 2007
will be a contingency added on minor permits requITed for any further tree removal or second
floor window modifications on the plan~
. He said he also explored a number of options by pus];ring back tIle portico by 12 inches. He
reviewed the setbacks, and proposed changes in response to the concerns expressed by the
. 11 eighbors. He said he felt the .house was harmonious in scale and design Wit11 the
neighborhood and would not be a detriment to the surrounding properties~
It He said he would consider an awning window with obscure glass for tile bedroom facing the
neighbor's home to reduce the privacy impacts.
Chair Giefer opened the public hearing.
Richard Whittington, Stanford Place:
. Opposes the application.
.. Expressed disappollltment in the results- of the designer, as he felt he gave little but took more
back He said he felt the applicant was not being cooperative with the neighbors and not
making any changes as suggesteq. He said he did not agree with the applicant) s st~tistics on
setbacks relative to the neighboring honles.
. Said he would prefer that the PODico be lower than proposed, less massive~. He also objected to
the-applicant~s proposal to decrease the front setbacks, making the home closer to the street.
. Charles Robidart, Tiptoe Lane:
. Opposes the application~
. . Said that his concerns were related to the location of his property- to the applicant's, relative to
pnvacy~ .
. He said he had a verbal agreement on three items with the applicant to assist with the privacy
issue. First, that the trees as they are planted will be a minimum of 12 feet tall; second, that the
common boundary fence will be repaired and the cost split; and thirdly, that the vegetation
currently along the fence will be removed to avoid future problems of the fence being pushed
over .by vegetation. He said he had not hearq. at the meeting a commitment from the applicant
that the agreement is binding, and would like to hear something binding from the Planning
Commission in the form of cOl1ditions on the plan, or from the applicant to respond to the three
items which are _currently in the fOrol of a verbal agreement .
. He noted that the plan presented by the applicant differed from tIle plan he received in the
mail; specifically the plan he received illustrates four trees across the back, and the plan shown
illustrates only three. He requested that the Plannulg Commission ensure that four tr~es are
planted along the boundary which are necessary to achieve the privacy for both 7496 and 7508
Tiptoe Lane.
. Requested that the verbal agreelnents be implen}ent~d, with respect to the issues raised by the
addition of the second story home. If the requITelnents are met, he said he would support the
project, which he does not support presently.
Gary Chao:
. Said that the difference in plans presented and mailed, was likely an unintended error on the
applicant's part. He clarified that 4 trees would ~e planted as part. of the rear privacy
mitigation screening.
. He said that the proposed changes in the setbacks from the applicant were new to the staff, and
he understood that the applicant may ask the ~onuniss~on to consider allowing him to push the
house further fonvard. The Commission could decide to allow the change in setbacks, but for
the benefit of the neighbors, that number should be clear.
. Clarified that the decision would be based on the plan with 4 trees along tIle back'~
10 - 51
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
April 24~ 2007
Larry Line, Cupertino resident:
. Referred to numerous inconsistencies in verbal communication and the plans that still exist
before action can be taken~ .He said that the applicant did not respond to his earlier questions
that he said he would respond to.
. He asked staff aIld the Plarming Commission if there were any variances allowed- for the plans
that are not -according to code. ,
. ~e noted that a large tree previously existed on -the front area of the lot and he recommended
that the tree be replaced.
. Stated that the proposed home is not consistent with the neighborhood relative to. the front
porch which extends beyol1d t~e garage. Currently there is only one front porch in the
neighborhood which extends slightly in front of the garage, every other porch is recessed back
away from the garage or flushed against the garage. The propo$al is inconsistent with the
overall pattern of the neighborhood.
. Said he concurred with .Mr~ Whittington about the discrepancy. of the distance between the
homes; he llldicated that the distance was about 25 feet, not 23.5 feet
Gary Chao: .
. Explained the possible discrepancies in tlle measuren1ents.
- . Relatiye to the frOl1t yard setbacks, he clarified that the information in the current ,staff report is
the information being considered by the Plarining Connnission. If the applicant wishes to_
make any changes, it would have to .be defined thjs evening. The current proposal is to set
back the house 24 feet and.2 inches to the bay window, and to the front entry canopy is 20 feet,
9 inches.
. Relative to the courtesy notices sent to neighbors, the mailing to the neighbors went out on the
same day as those to the Commissioners. .
Lixin Yu, Cupertino resident:
. . Said that smce the current proposal for the master bathroom window. is for an operable
.window, he recommended that a privacy tree be planted. He suggested that the window be
smaller, similar to the other bathrootp. window. -
. He suggested that the privacy tree be the same size as that proposed for the back yard.
. He asked that the second floor -setback be :pushed further back.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resjdent:
. Said t11at the l1eighborhood reflects the D_ne story ranch style home, and any home built in the
neighborhood if it is tvvo story, should have wood siding and a shingle roof, \vith eaves that
reflect the type of porches etc. that are on the adj acent homes. The neighborhood is not a
neighborhood in transition and likely in the future the cUrrent homes would be ren10deled in
the same ranch style. She stressed tIle importance of 'retaining the ranch style in the
neighborhood. . .
. She said i~ was her opinion that the large. two story stucco home may decrease tIle property
values in the ranch style neighbo~hood.
. _ Said shy was disappointed-no effort was made to bring back the second story setback on tile
right side, as her understanding was tl1at everything on the second story has to be set back'
around tIle el1tire house, and if there is a deviation, they need to go back through the Rl .
sessions agalll, because something is wrong and it takes little to make that second story
setback. . .
. She said she hoped for a peaceful resolution to the issue.
1 0 - 52
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
Apri124,2007
Dan Borrego, Tiptoe Lane:
. Thanked the applicant and. architect for ~aking the changes to the rear elevation of the
Proposed hquse, specifically flattening the bay window and obscuring the clear glass in the
bathroom.
.. Thanked staff for being proactive in helping co111i?unicate with the applicant and getting an
agreement to plant 12 to 14 foot tall trees, which will help provide privacy~
. Asked that the Planning Conmrission consider the reconnnendation made regarding the
suggestion tllat the trees and rear elevation of the house have a covenant. to keep it from.
changing in the future. Re.quested that the changes be put in writing to ensure they are carried.
. through.
Chair Giefer closed the p.ublic hearing.
Com" Kaneda:
.. Asked staff if a covenant was standard procedure for privacy plantings.
Gary Chao: .
. Said it was a standard requiremel1t; relative t'? the trees, prior to final occupancy approval of
the- house~ confirmation would have to be .provided to the city that the trees are planted
according to the plans 811d/or ordinance. The trees will then be recorded by the applicant in
forn1 of a covenant at the County Recorder's Office, which goes with the address, not with the
particular property owner.
Com. Miller:
. Asked the applicant if he had a choice bet\veen reducing the depth of the portico in return for
all~wing the building to be moved a couple feet closer to the street, would that be acceptable?
. R,ay Chen:
. Said he preferred not to lower the portico, but was willing. to reduce the depth by one foot from
the adjacent building and still be able to move one foot forward.
< Steve Piasecki:
. Responded to a neighbor's question if there .are any exceptions, setbacks or' height, he said
there are nOlle being requested; this otherwise meets the Rl set back rules in the Rl Ordinance.
Relative to front setbacks, he clarified that the setbacks are front property line, typically ten
. feet from behind the curb line. This building is required to be 30 feet from the street.
Com. Wong: .
. He said there was a technical concern regarding lowerlllg the portico, 8.11d asked if there was
another idea ~n how to dramatically lower it so that it is not so imposing.
Gary Chao: . .
. Said without changing the roof'ofthe bay window, one option is wl1at staff suggested which is
t9 simplify the bay window which would, allow the lowering of the portico. The applicant
stated that physically without doing that the bottom eave of the portico is almost touching the
bay window roof so y,on cannot lower it .You could require that the gable end .of the entry
portico be revised to a hip, giving the visual appearance of that height coming down.. It is not
so intrusive right at the POID.t blank. Another option is to illtroduce a decorative feature such as
a trellis under the eave lipe to' give it some te?Cture and soften it up more.
Discussion continued regarding the entry feature.
1 D. - 53
Cupertino Planning 'Commission
10
April 24, 2007
Vice Chair Chien:
. Said the house was well desigIled and fits well in the neighborhood. He said he was more
concerned about the process that occurred; and he was reassured that the neighbors and
architect met and discussed the plan~ and made some compromises.
. Said that he felt the non-transparent windows did not set a good precedent; and people should
be able to look outside and view trees, which is why there is .privacy screening~ They should
not be expected to have to put up trees and cover their windows. He said he felt they should
not be enforcing such a policy. .. .
. Said he was prepared to approve the plan today.
Com. Kaneda: .
. . Said he was pleased that the architect met with the neighbors in an effort to address issues and
concenlS..
. He said he supported putting 12 foot trees in tile back yard with the inclusion of the. covenant;
supported tile portico as is, as ,veIl as the obscure glass in the window and the avvning
suggested by Chair Giefer~ The wall is appropriate; the architect is correct that to offs'et the
structure and lllove it a couple of feet is extremely inefficient structurally~ He said he could
support moving the b~ilding fonvard but it results in being a tradeoff between either moving
tile building forward and gettlllg SOIne privacy in the back yard or leaving the building where it
is and getting additional setback from the street You cannot have it both ways . unless, you
shorten the building. He suggested that the building stay where it is and not move forward
toward the street.
Coma Miller:
. Said he was also pleased that although not everyone got everything they asked for there has
been movemellt on both sides. . The applicant has agreed to some items which he felt were
important; but he was less concerned \vith the i$sues of.operable vs* inoperable and obscure VS~
non- obscure.. He said that he felt the front portico was too far forward, and he did not see the
n~ed for a sid~ entry it.1to the portico from the garage~
. He said in his op i;ni on, in attelnptmg to tweak the plan, they were getting. into' a dangerous
precedent in designing the project from the daisa He felt.there was enough movement on the
part of the applicant to satisfy some of the major issues of the neighbors to move forward on
the applicatiollw
Steve Piasecld:
. Said that t1le fence. repair/replacement and removal of vegetation issue is a private issue
between the two prope:rtY owners because there is nqt a public inte~est in maintaining or not
maintaining it.
Com.. Wong:
. Said he agreed with. the neighbor on the right hand side that he would like to see a privacy
protection tree regarding the windows on the rigl1t elevation. He recommended that suggestion
to his colleagues on the issue.
. Said he concurred with two .Connnissioners regarding the window qn the right hand side,
where a Jacuzzi tub is located., so the person who is in that conler will be actually sitting down~ .
Since th~ silllleight appears to. be at least 4 to 4-1/2 feet high, in order for that person to look
out they actually have to step into the tub and look out of the window~ It would be nice to have
.natural s.unlight coming into the bedroom.
. Said he still had concerns with the front elevation. He suggested i.f they could make it llltO a
bow window structurally, they could lower. the portico height where there is concern from the.
.1 0 - 54
Cupertino Planning Connnission .
11
April 24, 2007
neighborhood, perhaps by two feet. ~e said his co~cern is the massing towards ~he front of the
building~. .
. A neighbor suggested planting a large tree in the front yard as part of the landscaping plan to
offset the portico. He said he was ~ot opposed to the porqh, but was concerned with, the
massiveness ,_of the type of porch. The neighborhood understands they can build the second.
story if it can blen~ in Wit11 some .type of l~dscaping plan. It is just a little bit too large.
. He said asi.de from the previous coinments, he supported the .plan~ .
. He complemented Gary Cha.o on the excel.lent outreach.
Chair .Giefer:
. Asked if they stipulate a 12 foot Evergreen tree, which is what would be.necessary, does tllat in
some way conflict with tIle way they normally stipulate.a box size .for trees?
G.ary Chao: . .
· Said that it may, depending on what kind of tree they choose. Tl;e .minimum box size is 24.
inches; if a minimum height is, specified, the applicant should be able to frod a 24 inch box size
that is 12 feet at the tinle ofpl~ting. If not they would have to up the size to 36 to get the 12
foot l1eight.
. Chair Giefer:.
.. Said she felt the entry feature ~f the home was too massive for tile neighborhood. She said she
liked Com. Wong's ideas regarding reducing the height a.nd changing the window type and
significantly reducing the entry feature.
. If we were able. to agree to do thi-s, this evening then I would support the.project. Ifwe do not
agree to do tl1at then I cannot support the project because I do have to go back to what the
neighbors brough~ up the first time we heard this.. It is compatibility within the neighborhood.
At our first hearing on this issue, Com. Miller brought up that there is enough room on this
parcel to do a single story development Though you leave more of the ground open for
percolation and other things, tw'o story structures often make sense.
. The property rights of the existing neighbors is very important and we cannot forget they have
rigpts as well and expectations. The fact that this abuts to an Rl-i neighborhood I cannot help
but consider t11at and what that means to tllose neighbors. Even though I don't think Iny
position is going to win, I would support it ifwe dramatically changed the front entry feature.to
fit in better with the neighborhood.
. Said she did not suPP.ort the project in its present form because of the neighborhood fit
Vice Chair Chien:
. Commented that the Plamiing Cormnission should not be ruling on agreements between the
applicant and neigJ;1bors~
Gary Chao: .
· Regarding the issue of obscure glass in the windows and privacy plantings, he said it was not a
requirement to have both; there are three ways to address priyacy based on the Rl ordinance: If
the window is over 4 feet III sill height, there is no need for privacy protection; if the window is
obscure but has. to be fixed, it is pointless to obscure it when you can open it. That in itself will
take care of priv8;CY protection mitigation. The third option is to plant treesA
Chair Giefer:
. The neighbors are not comfortable with just a gentlen1en's agreement about the tree plantings;
they want it to be legally b:inding.
. 1 0 - 55
Cupertino Planning Comrrrission
12
April 24, 2007
Com. I(aneda:
. Said he concurred with Vice Chair Chien; and supported obscure glass or trees for privacy
planting, but not both~ He said he would also support moving the window up six inches and
. putting in clear glass~ .
Com. Miller:
· He questioned how the window could be opened if it was too high; an~ said the practicality is
that people are not going to use that window to peer at their neighbors. He said from a
practical standpoint, he did not feel it was an issue and they were spending an excessive
ampunt of time on the issue.
l\1otion~ Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Chien, to approve Application
R-2006-62, with the. following: rear yard trees to be 12 feet tan evergreen; applicant
to US~ either obscure glass on side windows, or plant a tree for privacy screening on
th'e right side.
Com. 'Vong:
. Presented a friendly amendment to add a tree. to the front area.
. Gary Chao: .
· It is required for all single family homes to have one tree in the front, minimum box size is 24
incl1es.
Chair Giefer:
· Added a friendly amendment noting tllat the applicant agreed to an awning style wjndow over
the sinks.
Com. Kaneda:
· Said if obscure glass was used, it requires an awning style windoww If planting a tr~e, it could
be any glass. .
· Asked if the covenap.t was to protect the trees frOlTI being pnmed and removed.
Gary Chao:
· Said if the window is. obscured, there is no need for privacy protection if it is fixed* If the
window is able to S\ving open, you may still need privacy protection trees.
COID* Miller:
· Said with the combination of the obscured glass and the a,vning style window, they decided
they did not need that. He said he l1esitated to make it fixed because the point oft11e window is
to let the bathroom air out to prevent the growth of mold in the room.
Gary Chao:
· Said the applicant was presented options; but the ordinance requirement is that if you obscure .
the window and in order not to plaIlt trees it has to be fixed.
Com. Kaneda:
· Presented a friendly amendment to do a privacy planting. and the window could :be whatever
the applicant chooses~
Vice Chair Chien:
· . As the second to the illotion, he agree~ to all the changes~
1 0 - 56
Cupertino Planning Commission
13
April 24, 2007
Com. Wong:
. Noted for the record that the site plan referred to for the front, and side setbacks is the plan the
. Commission~rs received on April 18th in their packets~ . He said he was voting N,? because the
front porch is very large and massive, and although. he would support a porch, he does not
support a porch that large. .
. He said that he felt the applicant did a good job at rea~hing out to the neighbors, 'although they.
could not come to an agreement on everything.
. . He said he agreed with the Planning Commission, but not on the mass of the front-porella
(Vote: 3-2-0; Chair Giefer No; Coma Wong No.)
Steve Piasecki:
. Clarified that a mechanism exists in Cupertino's ordinance for neighbors to agree amo!lgs.t
themselves to set a one story height limit and set a more stringent requirement to changing that
with a Use Permit requirement to go beyond that Often there are comments that it is a one
story neighborhood; but the one story neighborhood could with ,a majority, rezone themselves
to a height limitation as qid the neighborhood to the north. The reason it i~ rarely done is
because people perceive it diminishes their property value or limits their property .value.
- . J?1e flexibility exist~ in the ordinance arid people can so choose to opt for that if tl1ey "wish.
Com. Kaneda:
. .. Asked if there were neighborhoods such as Eichler neighborhoods, where in addition to
potentially a one story requirement, there is a stylistic requirement?
Steve Piasecld:
. Said that Monte Vista has some design guide.lines but they' can have one and tvvo story homes..
_The Eichler area does not have _a one story limitation; they can be designed in a.Wlo story -
format; it does have design standards for Eichler homes, typically the flatter or lovver pitched
roofs.
Chair Giefer declared a short recess.
EXC-2007-02
if~r .Jodoin
Ii residence)
art Canyon
Hillside Exception to construct a 689 sq ot second story
addition to an existing residence for aT of 6,870 sqp-are feet,
. which exceeds the 6,500 squar allowed; and an exception
to build on a prominent ri me~ . Plaillzing COlnnzission
der;ision final unless ealed.
AId Honda Honda Snellin nior Plan
.. Reviewed the application fo
addition to all existlllg home :D floor area ratio of 6,980 square feet, and an exception to
build on a pro~ent ridg · ,. as outli . the staff report. '
. She revie,ved the ba ound of the item, '. g that in the property received a previous
hillside exceptio . 1999 to build on. the prom ridgeline, which allowed for _a 2,081
square foot, and two story addition for a total of 6,1 uare feet Since then a 120 square
foot stora ed was built on .the premises, counting toward t
. Staff' oncemed that ~pproval of tIle application may set a precede future exceptions to
ed the FAR without"the application meeting all of the RES exception s. .Onlyon
e occasions has the maximum size been. exceeded and only where a new space w internal.
10 - 57
,.~
""
'J5S~
'TREE,. N5VTU5 ~ARINl\,
IN 24- BOX NIN" 8' HT..
lYP.
L&I
~
~ Z~v
!! :J:)6
~ ~i~
I :~i
::;;""
'"
o
IL
SITE INFORMATION
OWNffitlENffiGl~JIJI\It
.l.ORESS J45JSTMORDPLACE
ct.mmNO~14
A.P,N.If. 35lJ.31-l1ll1
SCOl'EOFWOOI(
OCWCONSTRUCTION
ZONING' fl..j
OCCU'AOC'l R-MJ-l
'"
,;194'>1'
."LLCU"BLHARI'S':<' M1S1'
!.l.lC~'Aa.EOloRH)oNGIWol JOOsr
TOTALPROf'OSEOOVDlIWIG.
Pf\OflJ5EOIlAOO:
-~,
r'-----'-, .,-'
r-J l....____::._..:
I
'v' 2t!DSTCIr1
I QUUlE
,
,
,
,
I
I
I
~_____J
I
I
I
I .2Nl STORY DDl
~ rCO~T AIlEA
It aJTUNI:
I
I
------l
I
I
,
_._._.._.. __._..u~
'J-
ilULDINGARfA
151M'
iNQ"-~
aOLCOUlll
1430SF~418SFIGAAAGfl
726SF
,.~
~-
lSH1R
ATGAAAGE;
ZNOFlR
1!rr S'lDRY
CUIUt€
TOTALffiOPOSEDRESIDENCE
AATlO0F2NlJFLRT01STFl.R
PROPCSEDFAR
..~
""
""
RAlWlR.OOR,
DOUBLEGlAZEVIN\t@I.LLWlNOOWS
CCHC L.ANDHC,
SEE 'f1RST FLO[Jl
PLAtt ~EEl ~3
TOTAL2MlFtRWAlLLINE: ImT
~OFTlJEWALLPERIt.IETER: Ii5!J
~
~/-rf
10'#
WALLPERllUERWlMORf THl.N Ii EXPOSED HE1GHTANOHllSNQ
,MlNOVERlAPFROM1STFlRROOn02lllFLRWALl:
r-------
I
$>
2ND flR ld
5ElB"'"
"',,,...,'"
WALl PERlIETERKl.StESSTHANi 8:PO!EO~E1GHT.'M)HIIS
1"MNOVERlAl'FROf.llSTFl.RROOFT01~FlRWALl
THINGS HAVE BEEN DONE SINCE LAST MEETING WI THE NEIGHBORS
, I
(MICAS wntlt
"" , I
""
! I
'. I
c_ ' I 0
t "" I
I j:j
" '"' I
'"' '" .~ I
I
..
S' ... , I
" ~ I
~
I!!
~
~-\W~b~~1~&~~~MNa~ RAY CHEN, P.E. 1E~ (408)524-5488
MAJOR REVISION ITEMS:
l"
..... ...... ..v
,,54.20' N~r5~'~
CONC WAU(WA Y
31 Froo:._nceh..b<ofJlowo<...."..llo4l.~
STREET PLAN T
RE~~ON
1145.~lI\'wit!dow...!Il'bly._..1O..""'9'...flIIlIIinWoll1dP<1'-<IIIl<lopdl..;1II:t<J.....2flolB"
lIE....,t,m...._Iiow....'I1ilil'........,_Io"'sowltlltlotO<lol!llern...-t.<.
~I S_,""""'hasb""",.j<led~tt.,fi<nl"'1l<<of,deElll;>q":nr;W"""
.
b
~
I)Roo;ribesl...I~!If1lY""'15'1l,101ofr""'.{""'.I'.porplo
~
~ If. STANFORD PLAC~
--L._______
'/)~.lwillbtSlllld~Ir:u.~....o"""l
:))T""''''''''''''OlWlB~....,boon'''''''-lk<oor-.._ol
lIW~:IoIlIvmClXl"I\'fb.~"., ~isjfl1",..
Revlsionmad on[)4104!07
PLOT PLAN
DATE1:2f1lj01
SCI'LE
DRAW
JOB
5)SI:r""i11W...'orJ.h...."""mwe<_tn_l~fro~Ihoba;I:yoRIr."..
6)Sor""''rib''ngl:licley5'llis_perltl".~IIbor,req,esl
"ET
1 /8"=1'-0"
0-1
(0
r-----------l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I (0 0
I
I
I
I I
~~.r-L-----J
r------
I 8
I
I
I
Nom 2"'D FLR N'EA. 0) .. 109 Sf INCLUOING STAfIlCA5E, DOUBLE otuITlNcr AREA
@ - 726 SF INCWDINC Scc:a-lO flOOR, B^Y-WltIDOW
1ST flR PiEA. 0 - 1430 SF INCLUDING nRST noOR, BAY-VlNDOW, PORCH
@ = 426 SF INCWOING GAR1a
FLOOR AREA CALCULATION
""
2ND flll lOP PLA lE
,...,'
__-=:1..
..-,------
/;/-----
//
c:-r/ ----
I _A1
rSTAlR CASE
......,
R-l) INSl,UTlON
1EXT. WALL. T'l'P.
11II.
III"
2ND F1R
10.00'
_.....I':=
o;MGE
1STFlR
0.00'
T.-
SECTION A-A
1/" = ,'-0'
2tfDf'lR
10.00'
"=:::2_
~ IUSI&IM
Ir~D
I
I IW1MY
IWL_
1ST FLR
o,aD'
.=::.:!!.-
,~
-~
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION B-B
1/4- = 1'-0-
Ia.I
i!
:J:
~ z~...
rLI ~~~
Z ((lev.
~ ~~<5
fi ~~~.
~ .~~
! Q! ~~i3
1I=:f,~
~
~
~i
I~
REVlSIOO
DATE 1l/l'll/Ol5
SCALE
DRAW
JOB
!i11E[r
Ao-3
f7 SHEETS
26 GA GAlV'D GUT
0/ 2X FASCIA BOARD
COLOR:
MATCH STUCCO
OR SWISS OFFEE,
TYP.
CJ / Air
V f'f"'r1 11 ~
~ ./rl. r?'-
~ J.H;::f ~ ~ m
./ ~ ~ 'IIXT A I I N IN '--1 _
T i I
I-
I rlO
f--- II
Lfl 3'-6"
, -0' , -0'
, -
I
FLR
0,0,9',.
~rL iJL U~
'i7 o:;! _)1 ~ " \r ),
~~~
26 GA. GALV. WEEP SCREEN. J
4" MIN ABOVE FINISH GRADE OR
2" MIN ABOVE CONC PAVING. TYP.
STYRENE TRIM,
AT All WINDOWS
COLOR: -W ..A11r
SWISS COFFEE, .......-r( l
TYP.
11 I
I~II~ ~J 11 I
I~ ~Q: U
- -;> ----- -------........ - -
.........-- __ ~__ __ !L-16' HT
.....-111
~ITIIII
D~
I I I
Il~ I
.kP """-
"""~JJ J J:1J;SO' d:iuN'c
------- - ~ IT T n
- ~ I I I
II 1 1 I I II I
I
12
iT' h----r 4. 5 TYP.
Ihr
23
230 Graystone
Swis5 CCTjG~
fh....
III~
2ND FLR TOP PLAT
18.50'
II
1
" I MILGARO VINYL, DBL P J
~_ COLOR: WHITE, ALMONC
I, TYP.
""t", J U ~ r BUILDING ENVELOP
II Yi-~----- ~ --~ND
I I I T li'-.... '- 1 ~~_o.
I r - II I II IITTll...,... ---- ---
_ _ _ _ _ _ _____ ~_\I'----,C
'=
O 0 --7/8" THK -COAT STL
0/ 2-LAYE GRADE "c
DITJ DITJ DITJ BBBIEEBI PAPER, 0/ EXT. STR P
16" IOOD:: ::ibrnJ'DOI:J '----" COLOR: GR YSTONE or
~
TYP DDDDJDD
D 0 ~ticDD'D:DDD ~
- ~~ DD DDD i:~ A~~~~GE FG
DBL PANE GLAZING 1 3/4" THK SOUD CORD
- VINYL SET, MILGARD '-----OAK DOOR W/ RAISED
OR TO BE SIMILAR, TYP. PANELS STAINED FINISH.
COLOR: WHITE OR COLOR: CHERRY
ALMOND
FRONT ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"
16'X7' AMARR STELL
_ GARAGE DOOR W/
WAGON WHELL-LONG PANEL.
COLOR: SANDTONE OR
WHITE.
VENNER STONE
COLOR: GRAY
E B
,
\ . ~
j' a ~~ l!l~
~ ~ .~~!I~r gii.:!
~ ~!! f Hd~U ~plt_
~ ~ ~ ! - i i iji~ ~
~~J. !~~ I i / I i ~!e t ~
~ i I rOa.Ci ~~ ~~
en l. / ! t I I} .'U Dt'.L 1
~ J=. I L I "II ):t i
u F = - ! j I liP iii I! :s
~ Je~:1 --~: m;WBbJ.:oi= ;~~
~ ~~:= -tv ~ I ~:~ I OJ: ;;it
c \-. =;....J' ~ ~ I :-= mlpllO: _al~~;
<3:: ~ // I' j - "- ttllUll ---J
~ ~~J i -! =: mtJOD ~~
j] (ttd I~II ~I
~ it ~ ~~! ! ~I[' If ,wl~ ~~!
~ CS~. ::'n=:==~~J I In ~S
. ....S!f: r-~ ' (
.. ~~ 0 ~ ~\\{ ~ - I 0 ~~~g
~ = ,( \ - l .R ~:~:~
\J ~ ~~ ~f!5g
~ -- ~ ~ ~I~
~:: tll_'hlO~ ~ "I
~ -:. I ~ '15~
~;I_ - ~J11 ~I~
I \ -, ~ I i tili~
. I ~f~
I ~~ 3~
(;:0 I -l~~
~. ~ ~
~I~
. :Jl
..
~
OJ ~I
~ i~ ~~
Cf ;l~8el .
- ~~~!~
o
o
n:::
~
c..
E
(f)
\
I'<) rut TCP f\.A
~~'i=
8
2ND fUt
10.tIY i
...;:a.__ UllM ~
~ ..00'
..-....:B.::_
_~r- .~._ - - JIl.~__'-T~
-
I aEVATION
1'-<(
-
Y'~ I<P ~
-".J'_-El
:0 _..L~:~
~'irf" \:
m,lttO ~I
-:':::.:K__ ,qG.
_.L'::...
fill
--~
REAR ElEWITI
'16" . t'~
lEFT ELEVATION
'/4" '!! I.fi"
I
OJ
l.Iii'j1j!
8 ~
- - - -
B
-
~__. D
..-.-'.-- ~
~~
1/~' _ ,'.a"
Lower Entry By Another 6 Inches
4" ll'nlDliE ~ Lr
AT AU. ~ r11'i...
~<<mt. ~ .1 I "...u,UM.
\.......1 : II II II !I 1/ r
...Af'flll 1111 11~~""""" II I II 'II~
~lll 1/1111 II~~--i __~~J!~1 l!TI !t"fr'h.... ~fUt TtP PlAII
fO I I I 18 HT
___ II ~ n. 001. PANI:.
-- It--- .-. 1"-'- - I ca..~ ~ AlWtll
III TlP.
..........."IIIIII~ I
A '1~ I - ~ BUt.DI'fO DM10P
V fl......-r ';,> T~- . ~ ~ II II~- - - --~:::. ---~-----
drii . ~ ~-r--- __ ~j lilT II Tho- i-~ ~ru:
~II III If" ~ r'" --r- ---...:..:' iJrr"U 1 .1 r I lTll II l"",,- ..... ...:c--
_~ -r ,,/I II I~ IIlI r . . ~.Ji ."11 111111 II IT II ,..,. ----- -~"'a
'=ffl1.'t111T1l'11Tl1= 'II .- ---- -- -- - - ----- ----,00>
l!!!!! .-- 'r--. ~
~ . -~w~~~
I' 01 2-V. ~ aIAOC "tl" IlUlC
-.- _'. CI:I::J'J:]::I:3;a:r:r:l::t1:l;EE8 ~- Q), Ii1l'I PlY. TIP.
~ 16" UJ:n:IDlc;J;J:C::C: ~ ~ ., SNIO 1RN'
'_ ~ J'-6' '_1 L-aJ - - ~ Ot::I___J_ __(L .
~L ~ ~Atl[] IJL LJOD,q==~~
- -. J:;A I....- D:l H I~ A'.mAGE ,.~
~. -.Lit
211 CA. CN...V. 1lUP salIDf. ~ L Del. fiN€. GlAZIfG 1 3/4- l1iK &JUD cooo 18'X7' IoIIAAR SmL
.4- ~ A8<lW: FlNSH I)UOE M Wf'l\. ~T, I4DAAD '-OAK DOOR W/Il...sm "- WAGE DOOR wI L- \tMfEfl STOffE
2 Nit AIIi)'t1; CU<<: PAWlG. TW. ~ TO liE SlIIUoR. rn>. PNE1$ STAI(C rv.SH WAOON YIKU.-lbHO P1oHEl.... ca..cn: GRAY
CQ.M: YHTE at <XX,.OR' afERRY' 00lOR: SAM)TCHE 00 .
#.U!Cfl'O - llHI~
fy Roof Feature
20 OA GH.Vtl CUTTDl
&{lit rASaA 8ONlO
lU.104mucco
at S<<SI\ ~
hP.
Simp
M
""
II t.. 4,(..." 4iTlEJI
&'L~ r...~.. .:>>.'U
"..ltH t,I\.(~(J
l~ :."!.\ t.FJtE.
T.....
~ ,... O'i.\'. O{[~ '.01[['_
4- ~I.. oIBD\( R~ IH CtCAlE DtI
i- ,.1...- ....:h( w".c: P.....,,~ Tn-.
H ~ ll....rI.:. 1I.4TT'EA
?Ii.&; r.. ""J. .:>oIl;
.....':.H tl~H(J
\J'( hol',~ tffEE,
Tv,.,
'5 c... C-L.', o([l'~Ol[['"
I" .1. .BD'd: Flol!H I:.~ t~
j" ..,... ".:J~ Wile P......,'t'. Tn'.
I ~.I/
//
~/)~. --
Fl..R
~~~
_l..~ M
!lIu. fM./ln _
~.. DllC -1'1. II ",.,
!~l'!:
-0111;04 IIIIU
, I
,
... , 'r. b
4. I ~
, I
., I
. I
L
-I-
. ,
4-
w~ct
\.,
.'
Jl
r--
I
>,a ',:/.: I~\./ .:.,-,::
'! .I.,:)...J.','.
:~tf-'-.l.;;::,"",:,::Il:':
;i:i~,:!;;~/
.: ,_, ',. t. .~, t~" .\.
:~:~",~,~s ~~:.,::::;;'::~: :;:;:
~~;-
1-.1
r~~1Q
'------,
I
I
.....J....._
....
v ... ...
... '.'
.... 4- + ~.
.~ ... .4'
..... ~ .... ...
54.00' NM'58'W
- -- -
CONC WALKWA Y
rt.......,.
"".-
~
SlRt::n PLANT
,'-r:!'
'"
~.
I +
I
I...
I _
I'"
I'"
I ~
~,
.
_l:
IoJ
'N
P
8
;2;
'2
r-
r-
....
filft.T,f.,
..
...
~ ~ SfANfORD PLAC~
..
b
,
~
Sample FAR of the Project
Neighborhood
Lot Size House Size FAR
7498 Stanford 6,534 s.f. 1,639 s.f. 250/0
7490 Stanford 6,098 s.f. 1,564 s.f. 250/0
7478 Stanford 6,098 s.f. 1,639 s.f. 270/0
7464 Stanford 6,098 s.f. 1,639 s.f. 270/0
7458 Stanford 6,534 s.f. 1,639 s.f. 270/0
7459 Stanford 6,098 s.f. 2,526 s.f. 410/0
7552 Tiptoe 5,663 s.f. 2,641 s.f. 470/0
Lot Size House Size FAR
22381 Mcclellan Rd. 18,731 s.f. 2,207 s.f. 12%
10590 San Leandro Av. 14,810 s.f. 978 s.f. 6%
10560 San Leandro Av. 12,197 s.f. 2,068 s.f. 17%
10538 San Leandro 12,197 s.f. 2,479 s.f. 20%
22388 Santa Paula Av. 8,712 s.f. 2,156 s.f. 25%
22420 Santa Paula Av. 9,583 s.f. 2,304 s.f. 24%
10554 San Leandro Av. 8,712 s.f. 4,059 s.f. 45%